Precision Auto Services is a fictitious name owned, controlled andoperated by Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc., with itsprincipal place of business in Clearwater, Florida. The truenames and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknownto the Plaintiff.

AIRBNB: Faces Class Action Over Single Room Occupancy Hotel Rooms-----------------------------------------------------------------Joshua Sabatini, writing for The San Francisco Examiner, reportsthat short-term rental service Airbnb has been targeted in aclass-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Courtstemming from allegations of illegal short-term stays at a 62-roomsingle-room occupancy hotel about three blocks from Union Square.

The lawsuit adds fodder to the ongoing debate in San Franciscoover whether to legalize short-term rentals through onlineservices like Airbnb and how best to regulate them. The debatecomes at a time when rents and evictions have hit noticeably highlevels and housing is in scarce supply.

Filed by attorneys Mark Hooshmand and Tyson Redenbarger of SanFrancisco-based Hooshmand Law Group, the lawsuit argues thatAirbnb has knowingly profited from use of its services inviolation of San Francisco housing codes and seeks damages for thealleged violations.

The lawsuit specifically focuses on alleged violations at the 62-unit single room occupancy Sheldon Hotel at 629 Post St. in theTenderloin. Single-room occupancy hotels are housing intended forlower-income residents. The class-action complaint was initiallyfiled on behalf of two long-term Sheldon Hotel tenants, DanielMcGee and Louis Gamache.

"They live there. They were concerned with what has happened intheir hotel," said Mr. Redenbarger, adding that the plaintiffs areafraid the situation could somehow cause them to lose their homes.

Among the claims in the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs sufferedfrom increased noise and foot traffic from Airbnb guests.

Hotel owner Cameron Ardebilchi blasted Hooshmand, who has filedlawsuits against him in the past.

"Hooshmand is full of it. He just wants to run up attorney fees,"Mr. Ardebilchi said. As for the short-term rental allegations,Mr. Ardebilchi said that "we used any services that we can use toget our rooms rented" but when doing so, "we have not broken anylaws." He declined to go into further specifics, citing theongoing litigation.

In general, single-room occupancy hotels are not allowed to rentrooms for less than seven days, but there are exceptions if unitssat vacant during the winter months.

"The code is very specific of what we can do and can't do and wefollow that code," Mr. Ardebilchi said.

Airbnb spokesman Nick Papas said the company would not commentspecifically on the legal action.

"But anyone who follows our company knows how deeply we care aboutmaking San Francisco a more livable, more affordable city, and weare constantly striving to better inform our community of hostsand travelers," he said.

San Francisco officials have said that Airbnb and services like itare the wave of the future, so the question isn't whether tolegalize them but how best to regulate them.

That question is expected to be hotly debated Sept. 15 when theBoard of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committeewill hold a hearing on legislation that would legalize andregulate short-term rental services like Airbnb.

Introduced by board President David Chiu, the legislation wouldlegalize short-term rentals in multiunit buildings if the residenton the lease lives in the unit for at least 275 days out of theyear. It also requires a registry of hosts with The City.

ALL-PRO BAIL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Angel Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated v. All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc., a CaliforniaCorporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-04053 (N.D. Cal., September 5,2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to payovertime compensation.

AMARIN CORPORATION: James Reiss to Serve as Lead Plaintiff----------------------------------------------------------A U.S. Court consolidated class action lawsuits against AmarinCorporatio plc, appointed lead counsel for the class, and selectedJames Reiss to serve as lead plaintiff, Amarin said in its Form10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onAugust 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

A purported investor of Amarin filed on November 1, 2013, aputative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. AmarinCorporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) inthe U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. AmarinCorporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013),Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT)(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No.3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed inthe U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December9, 2013 the cases filed in the Southern District of New York weretransferred to the District of New Jersey, with all cases thenbefore the same judge.

The complaints assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and formerofficers and directors made misstatements and omissions regardingthe FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication andthe potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trialto that approval. The putative class periods alleged in thecomplaints vary from the July 9, 2009-October 15, 2013 periodalleged in the Sklar and Siegel complaints, the July 9, 2009-October 16, 2013 period alleged in the Bentley complaint, andAugust 8, 2012-October 16, 2013 period alleged in the Bovecomplaint. The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages andattorneys' fees and costs.

On July 24, 2014, the court consolidated the cases, appointed leadcounsel for the class and selected James Reiss to serve as leadplaintiff.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses and willvigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannotpredict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimatethe loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. The Companyhas insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover anysignificant loss exposure that may arise from this action afterpayment by the Company of the associated deducible obligationunder such insurance coverage.

Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company withexpertise in lipid science focused on the commercialization anddevelopment of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health.

APPLE INC: Judge Trims Claims in "Breaking Bad" Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judgeprovided a bit of both good and bad for the parties to a proposedclass action alleging Apple Inc. cheated fans of the crime drama"Breaking Bad."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District ofCalifornia ruled that plaintiff Noam Lazebnik had sufficientstanding to proceed with a trimmed-down version of his suitalleging Apple engaged in false advertising in its offer forviewing the Emmy-winning show's Season 5, its final one, oniTunes.

But in his Aug. 29 order, the judge also threw out two ofMr. Lazebnik's claims, ruling that Mr. Lazebnik failed to back upallegations that the company breached a contract or violatedCalifornia's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

Mr. Lazebnik contends Apple pulled a fast one on consumers in 2012by changing the definition of "full season" after he and otherspurchased, for $21.99, a "Season Pass" for the final season of theshow, which was produced and marketed by AMC Networks Inc., andsold through Apple's iTunes platform.

But instead of getting what he understood would be the full 16episodes of Season 5, Mr. Lazebnik said, he got only eight. Whenhe complained, the Cleveland gynecologist said, Apple informed himthat Season 5 included only the first eight, while the last eightepisodes were a separate, "Final Season," to be aired in 2013.Apple said the final episodes could be had for $22.99. That wasthe first Mr. Lazebnik heard of such a distinction; he feltcheated and sued, court documents show.

The judge noted that Apple's ads for the season pass made nospecific mention of any bifurcation, and instead described theoffer as including "every episode in (Season 5) and at a betterprice than if you were to purchase it one at a time."

BATS GLOBAL: Robbins Geller, Motley and Labaton Sucharow File Suit------------------------------------------------------------------Scott Patterson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports thatthree big law firms have joined forces to pursue legal actionagainst major US stock exchanges, claiming they handed unfairadvantages to high-frequency traders to the detriment of regularinvestors. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of theSouthern District of New York, could test a cornerstone ofsecurities law: exchanges' immunity from lawsuits seeking damages.

The firms leading the case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, MotleyRice and Labaton Sucharow, are seeking class-action status fortheir suit. They allege in a 136-page complaint that the biggeststock exchanges gave preferential treatment to certain customers,costing regular investors, such as public pension funds, billionsof dollars.

Plaintiffs include the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and theState-Boston Retirement System. The complaint alleges stockexchanges provided high-frequency firms "enhanced tradinginformation at faster speeds" than other investors received. Theexchanges also crafted "complex order types" that gavesophisticated traders advantages, such as the ability to trade infront of other investors to get a better price.

The judge overseeing the case hasn't ruled on whether to grant thelawsuit class-action status. Defendants named in the suit includeUS exchange operators BATS Global Markets, the Nasdaq StockMarket, the Chicago Stock Exchange and the New York StockExchange.

The lawsuit also names Barclays, which isn't an exchange butoperates a private trading venue called a dark pool that is thetarget of a civil lawsuit by the New York Attorney General'soffice. The lawsuit could face stiff challenges in court, legalexperts say. The plaintiffs need to demonstrate clear andspecific damages, a hurdle that could prove difficult, since theallegations often involve opaque and superfast shifts in marketprices.

"Explaining how to allocate the damages [in this case] could proveto be impossible," said John Coffee, a law professor at ColumbiaUniversity.

The complaint frequently cites former high-frequency traderHaim Bodek, who made allegations about order-type abuses atexchanges to the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011.

The toughest challenge the lawsuit is likely to face is a specialregulatory status exchanges enjoy that shields them from certainlegal challenges.

BLACK DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says---------------------------------------------------------------Edward Borelli, individually, and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. and Does 1Through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-02093-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.,September 9, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to payminimum wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act withrespect to tasks performed for which there was no compensation.

Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. is a California corporation withits principal place of business in located in Modesto, inStanislaus County. The true names of the Doe Defendants are notyet known.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $73.4MM in Obtryx Mesh Device Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat a Dallas jury has awarded $73.4 million in the first trial togo against Boston Scientific Corp. over one of its pelvic meshdevices.

Jurors in the 95th Judicial District Court in Dallas County foundthat the Obtryx transvaginal sling was defectively designed andthat Boston Scientific failed to warn doctors about those defects.

The verdict, which found Boston Scientific grossly negligent,included $50 million in punitive damages for Felix and MarthaSalazar; she had the device implanted four years ago to treaturinary leakage. She suffered nerve damage and now has difficultywalking, said Tim Goss -- tim@freeseandgoss.com -- principal ofFreese & Goss in Dallas, who represents the Garland, Texas,couple.

The trial, which lasted two weeks, was the first to go againstBoston Scientific, based in Marlborough, Mass. The company wonverdicts in two separate cases in Middlesex County, Mass.,Superior Court during the summer, one of which involved the sameObtryx sling.

"One big reason is that in the prior trials the jury did not getto see an exhibit we submitted into evidence where BostonScientific was withholding information from doctors regarding astudy that had been done," said Mr. Goss, who represented theSalazars along with David Matthews of Matthews & Associates inHouston. "I really think that's what upset the jury and was alarge part of the punitive damages."

"At Boston Scientific, patient safety is of the utmost importance,and we dedicate significant resources to deliver safe, high-quality products," Boston Scientific spokeswoman Kelly Leademwrote in an emailed statement. "We strongly disagree with thejury's finding and intend to appeal based on the strength of ourevidence."

The 2009 study, according to Goss, showed that Boston Scientificwas concerned that long-term erosion and other problems with theObtryx device could result in pain and difficulty having sexualintercourse. He said he also presented jurors with emails showingthat executives hid the study from doctors.

Mr. Goss said he has another case scheduled for trial on Oct. 6 inDallas involving a different Boston Scientific transvaginal sling.

The Sept. 8 verdict came as Boston Scientific faced the firstfederal bellwether trials over its pelvic mesh devices. U.S.District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of WestVirginia, overseeing more than 12,000 cases against BostonScientific, has scheduled an Oct. 14 date in Florida for fourbellwether cases to be tried at once. Another eight cases arescheduled for trial together on Nov. 3 in West Virginia.

Judge Goodwin is presiding over cases filed against fiveadditional manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson's EthiconInc. unit, which lost a $3.27 million verdict on Sept. 5 in WestVirginia in the first federal trial over its TVT-O sling. Ethiconalso lost a $1.2 million verdict on April 3 in Dallas over thesame device. Mr. Goss handled that case, too.

"I think once a jury hears all the facts, they realize theproducts should not be on the market," Mr. Goss said.

BP PLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Faulty Solar Panel Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Kat Greene, Kira Lerner and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360,report that a California federal judge on Sept. 8 refused to throwout a putative class action alleging units of BP PLC and The HomeDepot Inc. sold faulty solar panels, finding the plaintiffs hadsufficiently shown they may have been misled by the warrantyagreements that came with their purchases.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's ruling kept alive claims ofbreach of express and implied warranty, fraud, and unfaircompetition, and preserved the class claims, denying each elementof the defendants' bid to have the suit tossed. The plaintiffscontend that a component of the panels failed because of a defect,and that the defendants didn't honor the promises they made whenthey sold the panels, according to the suit.

The putative class had amended their original complaint tosufficiently show that they had relied on statements in the solarpanels' marketing materials that said the panels woulddramatically reduce electric bills forever, the judge found.

"A reasonable consumer could have relied on these statements asdescriptions of the quality and power capabilities of the solarpanels," Judge Illston wrote in the Sept. 8 ruling.

Lead plaintiffs Michael Allagas, Arthur Ray and Brett Mohrman seekto represent all California residents who purchased solar panelsmanufactured by BP Solar or residents who purchased properties onwhich the solar panels were installed, according to the suit.

The complaint, originally filed in California state court andremoved to federal court on Feb. 16, alleges that the defectcauses the shoulder joint of the panels to overheat. As a result,the heat melts the junction box, burns the cables and the solarpanel, and shatters the glass cover of the solar panel, accordingto the suit.

Because BP is no longer in the solar business, it can neitherreplace nor repair the panels, the plaintiffs said. The threenamed plaintiffs say they all reported solar panel failures to BPin 2013, after its solar arm had shut down. In response, thecompany offered to reimburse each of the plaintiffs for a littlemore than a third of the total cost of removing and replacing thedefective solar panels, according to the complaint.

Judge Illston initially trimmed some warranty claims in April,finding the plaintiffs had reported problems only after theirwarranties had expired, court records show.

The plaintiffs are represented by David M. Birka-White and MindyM. Wong of the Birka-White Law Offices.

According to the complaint, Caterpillar's exhaust emission controlsystem, known as the "Caterpillar Regeneration System," isdefective in material and workmanship causing the vehicle to notfunction as required under all operating conditions, on aconsistent and reliable basis, even after repeated emissionswarranty repairs and replacements.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principalplace of business located in Peoria, Illinois. Caterpillardesigned, manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied,inspected, marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted theMY2007 CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control,the CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship.

CBS CORPORATION: Simon & Schuster Settles Canada Actions--------------------------------------------------------CBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that antitrust suits havebeen filed against publishing parties by private litigants inCanada, purportedly as class actions, under Canadian law,commencing on February 24, 2012 ("Canada Actions"); and by anAustralian e-book retailer on September 16, 2013, and two formerU.S. e-book retailers in March 2014, each in the United StatesCourt for the Southern District of New York ("U.S. Actions").Simon & Schuster executed an agreement settling the Canada Actionsas of May 8, 2014, which is subject to Canadian court approval.Simon & Schuster intends to defend itself in the U.S. Actions.

CENTURY GOLF: Faces "Izzio" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL--------------------------------------------------------------Jillian Izzio and Heather Zoeller, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated v. Century Golf Partners Management,L.P., Case No. 3:14-cv-03194 (N.D. Tex., September 5, 2014), isbrought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair LaborStandards Act and New York Labor Law.

Century Golf Partners Management, L.P. owns and operates a gulffacilities that offer catering and banquet services for specialevents.

CLEAN HARBORS: No Class Certified in Suit Over Safety-Kleen Fees----------------------------------------------------------------Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two customers filed inOctober 2010 a complaint, individually and on behalf of allsimilarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, allegingthat Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extendedarea service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by thesame law firm in California and Missouri. It is Safety-Kleen'sposition that it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that thecustomers were contractually obligated or otherwise consented tothe charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by thecustomers when presented with an invoice. A class has not beencertified in any of these cases, and no reserve has been recorded.

CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Facing 64 Product Liability Cases-------------------------------------------------------------Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Safety-Kleen is namedas a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending invarious courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States,including approximately 64 proceedings (excluding cases which havebeen settled but not formally dismissed) as of June 30, 2014,wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use ofSafety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products.These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solventused in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment containscontaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does noteffectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in thesolvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assertthat Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user ofpotential risks, including an historic failure to warn thatsolvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substancessuch as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will providecoverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insuredretentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except forpunitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law orexcluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that theseclaims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, andintends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety ofits products against all of these claims. Such matters are subjectto many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable withassurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain theultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financialimpact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2014.

From December 31, 2013 to June 30, 2014, eight product liabilityclaims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of theseclaims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur anyexpense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full forall such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additionallawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurancecoverage may not be available.

Brocato claims that within three years from surgery one of herknees needs to be operated on again due to a failure with thedefendant's product. The plaintiff also claims that her otherknee has begun to show the same symptoms as the knee that needs tobe reconstructed again, so she fears she will need to have surgeryon both knees again due to the alleged failure of the defendant'sproduct.

The defendant is accused of failing to comply with federalrequirements for the medical device, failing to use an alternativeproduct when the defendant knew or should have known of theproduct's defect, failing to provide an adequate warning about theproduct, and failing to conform to an express warranty.

The plaintiff is seeking an unknown amount in damages for seriousphysical injury, harm, economic loss and future medical expenses.

Laurie Brocato is represented by Edward J. Lilly from the firm ofCrull, Castaing & Lilly in New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Kern A. Reese.

Case no. 2014-07299.

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces 53 Professional Liability Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------------Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as ofJune 30, 2014, the Company is engaged in 53 professional liabilitylawsuits. Nine lawsuits are currently scheduled for trial orarbitration during the next twelve months, and it is expected thatadditional cases will be set for trial or hearing.

"The ultimate results of any of our professional liability claimsand disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. A significantjudgment entered against us in one or more of these legal actionscould have a material adverse impact on our financial position andcash flows," the Company said.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term careservices to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily inthe Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centersprovide a range of health care services to their patients andresidents that include nursing, personal care, and socialservices. In addition to the nursing, personal care and socialservices usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company'snursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensiverehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Has MOU in Tennessee Stockholder Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that inNovember 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint wasfiled in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21stJudicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors. Thisaction alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciaryduties to stockholders related to its response to certainexpressions of interest in a potential strategic transaction fromCovington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The complaint assertsthat the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriatelyconsider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed a motionseeking to certify the action as a class action, which is notcurrently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff anddefendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outliningthe terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitivedocumentation and court approval. The agreement provides that theCompany will adopt and maintain certain corporate governanceprocedures for a period of at least three years.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term careservices to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily inthe Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centersprovide a range of health care services to their patients andresidents that include nursing, personal care, and socialservices. In addition to the nursing, personal care and socialservices usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company'snursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensiverehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces Arkansas Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages----------------------------------------------------------------Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in June2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofArkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Thecomplaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair LaborStandards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well asliquidated damages. The Court conditionally certified anationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees. TheCompany will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term careservices to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily inthe Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centersprovide a range of health care services to their patients andresidents that include nursing, personal care, and socialservices. In addition to the nursing, personal care and socialservices usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company'snursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensiverehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland County Suit in Early Stages-----------------------------------------------------------Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that inJanuary 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in theCircuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company andcertain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & RehabilitationCenter (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendantsbreached their statutory and contractual obligations to thepatients of the Facility over the five-year period prior to thefiling of the complaints. The lawsuit remains in its early stagesand has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. TheCompany intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term careservices to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily inthe Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centersprovide a range of health care services to their patients andresidents that include nursing, personal care, and socialservices. In addition to the nursing, personal care and socialservices usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company'snursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensiverehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Defends Use of Real Sports Stars in Video Games----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after yearsof litigation over Electronic Arts Inc.'s use of real sports starsin its video games, the company has pinned its legal strategy on aone-sentence footnote.

EA Games argued on Sept. 11 before the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit that its portrayal of retired National FootballLeague stars is protected by the First Amendment.

The catch? The Ninth Circuit squarely rejected that argument lastyear in a nearly identical case brought against EA by collegeathletes. That left EA lawyer Alonzo Wickers IV of Davis WrightTremaine clinging to a footnote in the court's 2013 ruling that heargued gives the panel an opening to craft a new standard for theuse of celebrity likenesses in video games.

"We're trying to provide a framework for analyzing these casesthat's adequately protective of expressive works," he said, "andwe don't believe the current [case law] does that."

Judge Marsha Berzon seemed willing to at least entertain Wickers'idea. "In other words," Judge Berzon said, "the video game ismore of an expressive work than a greeting card or a T-shirt."

In prior cases, courts have held works that show sufficientcreative input are protected, while mere celebrity likenesses arenot. Mr. Wickers says those rulings are too constricting.

Sunnyvale attorney Brian Henri, who represents the three retiredNFL players serving as plaintiffs in the case, not surprisinglytook a different view.

"I don't believe there's any open issue left for this court todecide," he told the panel, comprised of Judges Berzon, StephenReinhardt and Raymond Fisher.

Retired NFL players Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy JoeDupree sued EA Games in 2010, alleging the company misappropriatedtheir likenesses in its video game avatars. EA Games tried to getthe suit thrown out in 2011 by invoking the anti-SLAPP law, whichshields defendants from lawsuits that target protected speech.Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of Californiarejected that argument. EA Games appealed in 2012, but the casewas stayed while the college athletes' case, Keller v. ElectronicArts, 10-15387, was pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Keller had followed a similar trajectory. The lower court deniedEA Games' anti-SLAPP motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed theruling 2-1 last year. However, in a footnote, the majority said:"we reserve the question of whether the First Amendment furnishesa defense other than those the parties raise."

Mr. Wickers says that language gives EA an opening to prevail. Heproposed creating a second standard for the use of likenesses ininherently expressive works such as books, films and video games.He distanced his client's Madden NFL video game from products suchas T-shirts and greeting cards, which prior courts have ruled inspecific instances are not protected forms of expression.

The extensive graphic details that go into the making of a videogame guarantee that it will always be an expressive work,Mr. Wickers argued. The Madden NFL game, for example, uses morethan 390,000 data points.

Mr. Wickers disagreed. "We would submit that there's a great dealof creative expression embodied in that work," he said.

Mr. Henri put little stock in the footnote. The line simplyacknowledges the U.S. Supreme Court could come up with a newstandard to determine fair use, he said.

There's no question that the "transformative use" test, which askswhether the work contains enough creative elements that it risesabove the level of a mere celebrity likeness or imitation, is thegoverning test in this case, he said.

"It's very clear that EA fails this test," Mr. Henri said. "Thewhole purpose of this game is to have realistic simulation of NFLplayers."

Mr. Wickers also raised a new argument on Sept. 11 that he saidwas not considered in the Keller opinion. He claimed EA Games'depiction of the NFL plaintiffs qualifies as incidental use and istherefore protected.

"The avatars they complain about were merely a few of thethousands of virtual athletes in its Madden NFL video game,"Mr. Wickers' team wrote in its brief. "Where the use ofplaintiff's name or likeness is incidental in relation to thedefendant's work as a whole, the use is not actionable under theright of publicity."

Mr. Henri pushed back during the Sept. 11 arguments.

"You can hardly say," he said, "that the use of retired players'likenesses is incidental to a game that seeks to simulate theirplay."

EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Young v. CommonWealth REIT Suit Dismissed--------------------------------------------------------------Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that David Young filed onDecember 27, 2012, a putative federal securities class action inthe United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court, titled Youngv. CommonWealth REIT, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-12405-DJC, or the YoungAction. The Young Action was brought on behalf of purchasers ofthe Company's common shares between January 10, 2012 and August 8,2012, and alleged securities fraud claims against EQC and certainof the Company's former officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company said, "The complaint alleged generally that EQCviolated the federal securities laws by making false andmisleading representations about our business, operations andmanagement. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages plus counselfees and expenses. On January 22, 2013, we filed a demand forarbitration with the American Arbitration Association, or AAA. OnFebruary 25, 2013, Mr. Young filed a motion to appoint him as leadplaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel, which the MassachusettsDistrict Court granted on May 20, 2013, all in accordance withcustomary procedures for purported class action litigation. OnJuly 22, 2013, Mr. Young filed an amended complaint. On September20, 2013, EQC moved to dismiss the Young Action on the groundsthat the claims asserted (1) were subject to binding arbitrationunder our bylaws, and (2) failed to state a claim for relief underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. OnJune 9, 2014, Mr. Young voluntarily dismissed this action withprejudice, and the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal.Shortly thereafter, the parties notified the AAA of the dismissal,and the matter was withdrawn from arbitration."

EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: 120-Day Stay for Katz v. CommonWealth REIT---------------------------------------------------------------Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Jason Matthew Katz, apurported shareholder of EQC, filed on March 7, 2013, a complaintin the Maryland Court, titled Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No.24-C-13-001299, or the Katz Action. The Katz Action purports tobring claims individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated against EQC and certain of the Company's former Trustees.The complaint alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty and seeksinjunctive and declaratory relief, rescission of the March 2013Equity Offering, restitution and damages, including counsel fees,expenses and, if applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest.

On April 1, 2013, the Company filed a demand for arbitration withthe the American Arbitration Association for the Katz Action.Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, as amended from time totime, on April 19, 2013, Mr. Katz filed a petition to stayarbitration, and the parties completed briefing on Mr. Katz'spetition on September 16, 2013.

On January 21, 2014, the Maryland Court granted the parties' jointstipulation and motion to consolidate the Katz Action with theCentral Laborers Action, and consolidated the actions under thecaption Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299, or theConsolidated Maryland Action. On February 19, 2014, the MarylandCourt denied the pending petition to stay arbitration andpetitions for order to arbitrate, and ordered the parties toarbitrate the claims asserted in the Consolidated Maryland Action.

On June 12, 2014, Mr. Katz filed his opening brief in support ofhis motion to stay entry of judgment and to revise, alter, amend,or vacate the Maryland Court's February 19, 2014 decision. On June30, 2014, the Maryland Court granted the parties' joint request tostay this action for 120 days, pending the outcome of the speciallitigation committee's investigation of the claims asserted in theShareholder Actions.

EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Laborers Pension Fund v. Portnoy Stayed------------------------------------------------------------Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Central Laborers'Pension Fund, or Central Laborers, a purported shareholder of EQC,filed a complaint in the Maryland Court, titled Central LaborersPension Fund v. Portnoy, Case No. 24-C-13-001966, or the CentralLaborers Action. The Central Laborers Action purports to bringclaims individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated,and on behalf of EQC against EQC and certain of the Company'sformer trustees. The complaint alleges, among other things, claimsfor breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste ofcorporate assets. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctiverelief, restitution and damages, including counsel fees andexpenses. On April 17, 2013, Central Laborers filed an amendedcomplaint, adding plaintiff William McGinley, a purportedshareholder of EQC, and requesting a declaration that EQC'sshareholders may remove trustees without cause.

The Company filed a demand for arbitration with the AmericanArbitration Association on April 25, 2013. The Company and itsformer trustees filed petitions for an order to arbitrate and fora stay of proceedings pursuant to the Maryland Uniform ArbitrationAct on May 8, 2013 and May 16, 2013, respectively. On May 31,2013, Central Laborers and Mr. McGinley filed a second amendedcomplaint, adding plaintiff Howard Ginsberg, a purportedshareholder of EQC.

Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, as amended from time totime, the parties completed briefing on the pending petitions onJune 17, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Maryland Court granted theparties' joint stipulation and motion to consolidate the KatzAction with the Central Laborers Action and consolidated theactions under the caption Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299, discussed above. On June 30, 2014, the MarylandCourt granted the parties' joint request to stay this action for120 days, pending the outcome of the special litigationcommittee's investigation's investigation of the claims assertedin the Shareholder Actions.

FARMER'S RICE: Faces Class Action in California Over "Flush" Rice-----------------------------------------------------------------According to CBSLA.com, if you have eaten sushi in California inthe past four years, you could be part of a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit suggests sushi enthusiasts throughout California foryears have been fed rice that may have been tainted.

Areas such as Los Angeles, where there is a tremendous sushidemand, may be particularly exposed to what is called "flush," orunnatural rice ingredients.

Attorney Brian Kabateck discussed flush with CBS2's Elsa Ramon.

"The rice is adulterated with what's called flush in thisindustry," Mr. Kabateck said. "And flush in the industry isanything that is not supposed to be in the rice."

In the lawsuit, Farmer's Rice Cooperative is accused of sellingthe tainted rice to thousands of grocery stores across California.

Particularly, the names New Variety, New Rose and Imperial Roseare associated with the bad rice.

The complaint alleges the company would "allow substances, such asinsects, rodents and their soiling, bird remains and black mold tobe present in its processed rice."

Later, the complaint claims that restaurant and store owners wereled to believe they were buying U.S. No. 1 Extra Fancy rice.

What they received, however, according to the complaint, was notedible.

"Disposing flush rice by blending it with food-grade rice unfairlyallowed defendants to obtain a profit from rice that could not belegally sold for human consumption," the complaint states.

Mr. Kabateck also suggested the blend sold to restaurants andstores, in fact, contained more inedible than edible rice.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Circuit to Address Remaining Paxil Suits-------------------------------------------------------------Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reportsthat since closing the question about GSK's corporate citizenshiplast year, the Third Circuit opened the narrower question aboutwhere the remaining cases over its antidepressant drug Paxil wouldbe heard. That issue was before the appeals court on Sept. 10.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heldthat GlaxoSmithKline is a corporate citizen of Delaware, notPennsylvania, which effectively preserved GSK's ability to removeto federal court cases filed against it in Pennsylvania statecourts.

Many of the cases alleging that Paxil caused birth defects ininfants born to mothers who took it while pregnant were firstfiled in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, then removed tofederal court by GSK, then remanded when a district judge heldthat GSK was a Pennsylvania company.

After the Third Circuit issued its opinion declaring GSK aDelaware company, GSK sought again to remove cases to federalcourt, although the one-year window for removal on the basis ofdiversity had passed since the cases were filed.

District judges have split on the issue of whether thepharmaceutical giant could "re-remove" to federal court the casesthat had earlier been remanded to state court.

GSK, represented by Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- ofArnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., argued to the Third Circuiton Sept. 10 that its timely initial removal motion -- made withinthe 30-day general statutory window -- is a placeholder to whichit may now relate back.

"This court, in USX v. Adriatic [Insurance], held that after anintervening change in the law, amended notice can relate backseven years," Ms. Blatt said. That opinion was issued in 2003.Judge Patty Shwartz, though, noted that in USX, the case was stillpending in the district court when the change to the law tookplace.

"That's, as I understand it, one of the main arguments that GSK ismaking," Mr. Bashman responded.

Referring to the section of law at issue -- Section 1446(b) ofTitle 28 of the U.S. Code -- Ms. Blatt had said in her brief,"GSK's second removal is timely under the first paragraph becausethe second removal relates back to GSK's timely initial removal."

"What they're asking this court to recognize is a loophole," saidMr. Bashman, who is representing the plaintiff in a Paxil case, tothe Third Circuit panel.

Ms. Blatt, however, pointed to the Third Circuit's 1993 opinion inDoe v. American Red Cross, to which both sides cited as theprimary authority on the issue of re-removal, and said, "Onopening the floodgates," Doe happened 20 years ago and allowed forre-removal, but it has only been used three times since then."Their argument is basically that a case, once remanded, can neverbe re-removed and Doe says, 'No. No, as long as you have adefinitive source from a higher court, you're beyond the bar of1447," Ms. Blatt said, summarizing her take on the plaintiffs'argument and referring to the other section of 28 U.S.C. at issue.However, Mr. Bashman told the court that Doe clearly barredre-removal of a case on the same grounds under 1447(d); that asecond removal must satisfy one of the two parts of 1446(b); andthat the second paragraph of 1446(b) requires that if there is newcase law, the suit is not to be treated as though it wasoriginally removable, but, rather, that it has become removable.

Two district court judges last year had certified the question ofre-removability to the Third Circuit, which took up the questionin January over the objections of GSK.

"This case presents a unique issue of civil procedure thatinvolves a split of authority and has the potential to arise infuture disputes. A decision on this issue will also immediatelyaffect the eight other Paxil cases removed to federal court," saidU.S. District Chief Judge Christopher Conner of the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania previously in his December certificationfor interlocutory appeal in the case captioned Miller v. GSK.That is the case on which the Third Circuit granted appeal.

U.S. District Senior Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern Districtof Pennsylvania is the other judge who certified interlocutoryappeal.

Third Circuit Senior Judge Jane R. Roth was also on the three-judge appellate panel.

GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Prisoner Call Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports thata company that provides phone service to prison inmates has lostits bid to dismiss a putative class action over its rates inNewark federal court, but the case has been stayed while theplaintiffs pursue an administrative remedy with the FederalCommunications Commission.

Nevertheless, the judge has allowed the plaintiffs to proceed withlimited discovery in the case.

Global Tel-Link of Reston, Va., buys phone time for three-tenthsof a cent per minute but resells it for 30 cents per minute topeople who receive calls from inmates, according to the suit. Thecompany is the exclusive provider of phone service for stateprison inmates in New Jersey and the state's 40 percent cut ofthose phone fees comes to more than $4 million per year, the suitsays. Two affiliates of that company, Inmate Telephone Serviceand DSI-ITI, which provide similar services to county jail inmatesin New Jersey, are also named as defendants.

The suit, filed in August 2013, brings claims under the New JerseyConsumer Fraud Act and the Federal Communications Act, as well asthe takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. In November 2013, theFCC issued regulations capping rates for inmate calling servicesat 21 cents per minute.

Global Tel-Link and other prison phone service companieschallenged the new FCC regulations and that case is pending in theU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In light of thatcase, Global Tel-Link moved for dismissal of the New Jersey suit,arguing that the FCC has primary jurisdiction to decide if thecompany's terms are reasonable. The plaintiffs, for their part,said there was no need to refer the case to the FCC because thatagency had already resolved the issue of whether the company'srates are unreasonable.

In a Sept. 8 ruling, U.S. District Judge William Martini of theDistrict of New Jersey agreed that the FCC has primaryjurisdiction over certain issues in the case, but he entered astay rather than dismissing it.

Notwithstanding the stay, however, Judge Martini also issued anorder the same day allowing the plaintiffs to move for specific,limited discovery that cannot be obtained through the plaintiffs'own efforts in absence of a court order; that is not likely to beduplicative of discovery likely to be produced in theadministrative proceedings with the FCC; and where there is areasonable chance that the items sought will be lost before theend of the administrative proceedings.

The named plaintiffs in James v. Global Tel-Link are a formerstate prison inmate and six relatives of inmates. The suit saysfamily, friends and lawyers who wish to receive calls from inmatesare required to make a minimum deposit of $25, of which 20 percentgoes to an administrative fee. Users of the service are notprovided with a written contract and are not advised of the termsand conditions that apply to their accounts, the plaintiffsallege. When making a call, users hear how much money is left intheir accounts but cannot obtain an itemized statement of charges,the suit claims.

AT&T obtained the exclusive contract for inmate phone service inNew Jersey in 2002 and it sold the contract to Global Tel-Linklater in the same year, the suit claims. The plaintiffs includeMark Skladny and his parents, Barbara and Milan Skladny. WhenMark Skladny was moved from one penal institution to anotherduring his incarceration, his parents had to open new accountswith the defendant each time he moved, incurring fees to close oneaccount and open another, the suit says.

Judge Martini noted that the Federal Communications Act allowsplaintiffs to file a suit or make a complaint to the FCC if theyfeel a communications service is charging fees that are unjust orunreasonable. While the plaintiffs were within their authoritywhen they brought their suit in court, Judge Martini said, theissue of whether the company's fees and policies are unjust andunreasonable is "better left for the FCC." Pursuing anadministrative complaint with the FCC won't cause the plaintiffsto lose their rights to pursue damages in court, Judge Martinisaid. Cases requiring analysis of abstract terms such as"reasonable" are well-suited for an administrative agency, JudgeMartini said.

Responding to the plaintiffs' claim that the FCC had alreadyresolved the question of whether the defendants violated the newregulations, Judge Martini said the most important issue waswhether the company violated the FCA before the new regulationswere enacted.

Judge Martini declined to accept the plaintiffs' request for astay only on the FCA cause of action, while discovery continued onthe case's other causes of action.

"The overhanging uncertainty about the FCC's determination couldmake discovery on the other causes of action more contentious thannecessary," Judge Martini said. Therefore, the case will bestayed until the FCC rules on the reasonableness of thedefendant's charges and practices, or the plaintiffs drop the FCAclaim, Judge Martini said.

Because the court has no mechanism to refer a case to the FCC, andbecause the plaintiffs suggested at oral argument that they wouldnot seek the FCC's determination on reasonableness of the chargesand practices in question, Judge Martini directed the plaintiffsto file an administrative complaint within 90 days of the D.C.Circuit's decision in the pending appeal. If the plaintiffs failto do so, the defendants may petition the court to dismiss the FCAcount for lack of prosecution, Judge Martini said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, James Plaisted --jplaisted@walderhayden.com -- of Walder Hayden in Roseland, N.J.,said of the ruling, "Our preference is to pursue the casecompletely, and so the delay wasn't our preference, but it's notsignificant in the overall scheme of things."

GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixes Mortgage Suit on Additional Offerings----------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS MortgageSecurities Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachsemployees are defendants in a putative class action commenced onDecember 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of variousmortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificatesissued by various securitization trusts established by the firmand underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint generallyalleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplementsfor the certificates violated the federal securities laws, andseeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission orrescissionary damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal ofplaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings includedin plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal andremanded the case to the district court with instructions toreinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other sevenofferings.

On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended complaintrelating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings(additional offerings).

On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion todismiss as to the additional offerings.

On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative classaction asserting substantively similar allegations relating to oneof the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amendits amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of theadditional offerings. On March 27, 2014, the district courtlargely denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the originaloffering, but denied the separate plaintiff's motion to add thetwo additional offerings through an amendment.

The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to allpurchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Leave to Appeal Class Cert. Order Denied---------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action wasfiled on September 30, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co.(GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), and twoformer GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million ofnotes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (HudsonMezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended complaint assertsfederal securities law and common law claims, and seeksunspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. Thedefendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claimof market manipulation and denied as to the remainder ofplaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21,2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract andfraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants'petition for leave to appeal from the district court's January 22,2014 order granting class certification.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Sever Forced-Place Insurance Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has moved to sever the claimsagainst it and certain other defendants in a force-placedinsurance action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Group Inc., Litton Loan Servicing L.P., Ocwen FinancialCorporation and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a formersubsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative classaction pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York generally challenging theprocurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurancearranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insuranceas required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims forbreach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation,conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfairpractices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitivedamages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. An amendedcomplaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additionalplaintiff and RICO claims. On January 21, 2014, Group Inc. movedto sever the claims against it and certain other defendants.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Denied Leave to Appeal in RALI Litigation--------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants ina securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in NewYork Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York. As to theunderwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents inconnection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-throughcertificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federalsecurities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendantsinclude Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential AccreditLoans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC),Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain oftheir officers and directors.

On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class inconnection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includesonly initial purchasers who bought the securities directly fromthe underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading daysafter the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district courtgranted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of thepreviously dismissed claims relating to an additional nineofferings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffsfiled an amended complaint incorporating those nine additionalofferings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs'motion for class certification as to the nine additional offeringsbut denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period andscope covered by the previous class definition.

On May 28, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants' petitionfor leave to appeal from the December 27, 2013 order grantingclass certification.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.57 billion principal amount ofsecurities to all purchasers in the offerings included in theamended complaint. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed forChapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of New York. On June 28, 2013, the districtcourt entered a final order and judgment approving a settlementbetween plaintiffs and ResCap, RALI, RFC, RFSC and their officersand directors named as defendants in the action.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Zynga Securities Litigation-------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in aputative securities class action filed on August 1, 2012 in theCalifornia Superior Court, County of San Francisco. In addition tothe underwriters, the defendants include Zynga Inc. (Zynga) andcertain of its directors and officers. The consolidated amendedcomplaint, filed on April 29, 2013, generally alleges that theoffering materials for the March 2012 $516 million secondaryoffering of Zynga common stock by certain of Zynga's shareholdersviolated the disclosure requirements of the federal securitieslaws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission.On June 12, 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer, seeking to havethe claims dismissed. GS&Co. underwrote 14,824,358 shares for atotal offering price of approximately $178 million.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in FireEye Securities Action--------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in aputative securities class action filed on June 20, 2014 in theCalifornia Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition tothe underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye)and certain of its directors and officers. The complaint generallyalleges misstatements and omissions in connection with theoffering materials for the March 2014 $1.15 billion offering ofFireEye common stock, asserts claims under the federal securitieslaws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission.GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price ofapproximately $172 million.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Sought in Gender Bias Suit-------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on September 15,2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York by three female formeremployees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co.(GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against femaleemployees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments,mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges aclass consisting of all female employees employed at specifiedlevels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York Citydiscrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting inpart Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain ofplaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lackedstanding to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying GroupInc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegationsin their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of thenamed plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to anarbitration agreement with the firm.

On May 19, 2014, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Credit Derivatives Actions------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the numerous defendants inputative antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives,filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York. The complaintsgenerally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust lawsby conspiring to forestall the development of alternatives toover-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and to maintaininflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading. Thecomplaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well astreble damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants moved todismiss on May 23, 2014.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Aluminum Storage-------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. and itssubsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power) and MetroInternational Trade Services LLC (Metro), are among the defendantsin a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1,2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York. The complaints generally allege violation offederal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws inconnection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. Thecomplaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable reliefas well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.

Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on March 12,2014, and the Goldman Sachs defendants moved to dismiss on April23, 2014.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing Class Actions Over Zinc Storage-----------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. and itssubsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power), MetroInternational Trade Services LLC (Metro), and Goldman SachsInternational (GSI) are among the defendants named in putativeclass actions, filed beginning May 23, 2014 in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, based on allegedviolations of the federal antitrust laws in connection with themanagement of zinc storage facilities.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Currencies-Related Litigation Sought----------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named inseveral putative antitrust class actions relating to trading inthe foreign exchange markets, filed since December 2013 in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thecomplaints generally allege that defendants violated federalantitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy tomanipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seekdeclaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in anunspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the cases wereconsolidated into one action.

On February 28, 2014, Group Inc. was named in a separate putativeclass action containing substantially similar allegations, whichwas not consolidated but is coordinated with the other proceedingfor pretrial purposes; that complaint was amended on April 30,2014. On May 30, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaintsin both actions.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in High-Frequency Trading Case----------------------------------------------------------------The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. is amongthe numerous securities exchanges, broker-dealers and purportedhigh-frequency trading firms named as defendants in a number ofputative securities class actions relating to high-frequencytrading filed since April 18, 2014 in the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allegethat the defendants violated the provisions of the federalsecurities laws prohibiting market manipulation and insidertrading. The complaints seek, among other things, equitable andother injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatorydamages, restitution and disgorgement.

GOMEZ RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Romero" Suit Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Javier Romero, individually and on behalf of other employeessimilarly situated v. Gomez Recycling Inc., and Felipe Gomez,individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06907 (N.D. Ill., September 6,2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to payovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Gomez Recycling Inc., is an Illinois based recycling company ownedby Felipe Gomez.

HARMAN INT'L: No Briefing Yet on Securities Case Dismisal Appeal----------------------------------------------------------------The Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the dismissalof a securities class action against Harman InternationalIndustries Incorporated but no briefing schedule has been set,the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class actionlawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") againstHarman and certain of our officers in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seekingcompensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons whopurchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint allegedclaims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclosematerial adverse facts about Harman's financial condition andbusiness prospects. The complaint contended that had these factsnot been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners wasentered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or itwould have been at a much lower price, and the price of our commonstock therefore would not have been artificially inflated duringthe Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following thereports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiffclass significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' PensionPlan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman andcertain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damagesand costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stockbetween April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations inthe Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to theallegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the originalKim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims forviolations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act andRule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amendedcomplaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Periodthrough January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to theviolations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violatedSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. Theamended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for thefirst time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales wouldadversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per sharein fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share valueand additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of theKim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closingof the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of theconsolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). Thatsame day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public RetirementSystem as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the lawfirm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as leadcounsel.

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial managementpurposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. HarmanInternational Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re HarmanInternational Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class actioncomplaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The ConsolidatedComplaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers anddirectors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Actand Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false andmisleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscalyear 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the ConsolidatedComplaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failedto disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personalnavigation devices and our capital expenditures. The ConsolidatedComplaint alleged that when Harman's true financial conditionbecame known to the market, the price of our common stock declinedsignificantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the ConsolidatedComplaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed areply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,2008.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments ondefendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, onSeptember 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing ondefendants' motion to dismiss.

"On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss,without prejudice, the In re Harman International Industries, Inc.Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice ofappeal but no briefing schedule has been set."

Harman International believes it is a worldwide leader in thedevelopment, manufacture and marketing of high quality, high-fidelity audio products, lighting solutions and electronicsystems. It also believes it is a leader in digitally integratedaudio and infotainment systems for the automotive industry. ItsAha(R), AKG(R), AMX(R), Becker(R), BSS(R), Crown(R), dbx(R),DigiTech(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), JBLProfessional, Lexicon(R), Logic 7(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R),Revel(R), Selenium(R), Soundcraft(R), Studer(R) and yurbuds(R)Powered by JBL brand names are well known worldwide for premiumquality and performance.

HARMAN INT'L: Dismissal of "Russell" Action Under Appeal--------------------------------------------------------The Russell Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of thedismissal of its class action lawsuit against Harman InternationalIndustries Incorporated but no briefing schedule has been set, theCompany said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the fiscal year endedJune 30, 2014.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint onDecember 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia and an amended purported putative classaction complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of ourofficers and directors alleging violations of Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf ofall participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman InternationalIndustries Retirement Savings Plan (the "Savings Plan"),compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan as well asinjunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaintalleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present defendants failedto prudently and loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, therebybreaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causingthe Savings Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstandingthat the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment forthe Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaintfurther claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failedto monitor the Savings Plan's fiduciaries, failed to provide theSavings Plan's fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the SavingsPlan's participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and ourbusinesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contendedthat defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts ofinterest and to serve the interests of participants in andbeneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As aresult of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaintasserted that the Savings Plan had "suffered substantial losses,resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of theretirement savings and anticipated retirement income of theSavings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial managementpurposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. HarmanInternational Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re HarmanInternational Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendantsmoved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss onSeptember 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in furthersupport of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22,2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.The Russell Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal but no briefingschedule has been set.

Harman International believes it is a worldwide leader in thedevelopment, manufacture and marketing of high quality, high-fidelity audio products, lighting solutions and electronicsystems. It also believes it is a leader in digitally integratedaudio and infotainment systems for the automotive industry. ItsAha(R), AKG(R), AMX(R), Becker(R), BSS(R), Crown(R), dbx(R),DigiTech(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), JBLProfessional, Lexicon(R), Logic 7(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R),Revel(R), Selenium(R), Soundcraft(R), Studer(R) and yurbuds(R)Powered by JBL brand names are well known worldwide for premiumquality and performance.

HJ HEINZ: Plaintiff's Testimony Not Admissible in Asbestos Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,reports that testimony given in an asbestos products-liabilitylawsuit by a maintenance worker at a ketchup bottling plant isinadmissible in a workers' compensation lawsuit, the Ohio SupremeCourt has ruled.

Plaintiff Donald Burkhart died from mesothelioma, a cancer in thelinings of the lungs, stomach and other organs related to asbestosexposure. In a deposition, Mr. Burkhart testified regarding hisexposure to asbestos from various manufacturers. After his death,his wife, Mary Lou Burkhart, filed a workers' compensation claimagainst his employer H.J. Heinz Co. for allegedly exposing him toasbestos from his work in a boiler room with pile insulationcontaining asbestos. Mr. Burkhart worked for Heinz for 40 yearsuntil his retirement in 1986.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell opined that Mr. Burkhart's depositiontestimony was not admissible in the workers' compensation casebecause the products-liability defendants did not have the samemotive as H.J. Heinz to develop Mr. Burkhart's testimony.

"Each asbestos manufacturer sought to disprove that [Burkhart] hadbeen exposed to asbestos that it had produced, and none had anincentive to dispute that he had not been exposed to asbestos atH.J. Heinz," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

Under Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(1), testimony from a witnesswho is not available is not precluded as hearsay if the defendantor a defendant's "predecessor-in-interest had the opportunity toexamine the declarant in the prior proceeding" and had a motivesimilar to the defendant's motive "in the present proceeding todevelop the former testimony by direct, cross, or redirectexamination," the court said.

Hearsay testimony is not admissible from earlier court proceedingsunless it was developed by the defendant or another party withwhich the defendant is in privity through a legal "right, title,interest or obligation," Justice O'Donnell continued. Otherwise,it's unfair to impose liability on the basis of a witness'testimony that the defendant did not question, he said.While some federal courts have found that privity is not requiredto establish a predecessor-in-interest relationship, "we view therequirement that the examiner have had a similar motivation to bea further restriction in the admissibility of former testimony,not an expansion of the common law rule that permits the admissionof former testimony against parties unrelated to the prioraction," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

In dissent, Justice Paul Pfeifer said he would have adopted theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's standard for whatconstitutes a predecessor in interest from the 1978 decision inLloyd v. American Export Lines Inc.: "If it appears that in theformer suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine aboutthe same matters as the present party would have, was accorded anadequate opportunity for such examination, the testimony may bereceived against the present party.'"

HUDSON CITY BANCORP: NJ Court Has Yet to Approve Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the announcementof the merger with Wilmington Trust Corporation ("WTC"), a whollyowned subsidiary of M&T Bank Corporation ("M&T"), eighteenputative class action complaints have been filed in the Court ofChancery, Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors,M&T, and WTC challenging the Merger. Six putative class actionschallenging the Merger have also been filed in the Superior Courtfor Bergen County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "NewJersey Court").

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the HudsonCity Bancorp directors breached their fiduciary duties to HudsonCity Bancorp's public shareholders by approving the Merger at anunfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed salesprocess, and that Hudson City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleadingand incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with theproposed transaction. All 24 lawsuits seek, among other things, toenjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs andattorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek an accounting ofdamages sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciaryduty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding thesettlement of all of the actions.

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the othernamed defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an agreementin principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants fromall claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the NewJersey Court. Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&Tagreed to make available additional information to Hudson CityBancorp shareholders. The additional information was contained ina Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as anexhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013. Inaddition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also hasreserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees andexpenses.

If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement contemplated bythe MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with prejudice. Thesettlement will not affect the Merger consideration to be paid toHudson City Bancorp's shareholders in connection with the proposedMerger. In the event the New Jersey Court approves an award ofattorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the settlement,such fees and expenses shall be paid by Hudson City Bancorp, itssuccessor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of theallegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in theJoint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed tosettle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, anddistraction of further litigation.

"The complaints allege, among other things, that our board membersbreached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the valueto be received by our shareholders and that Wisconsin Energy aidedand abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek,among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from consummatingthe proposed merger and (b) to rescind the merger agreement. Webelieve the claims asserted in each lawsuit have no merit andintend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said.

David Schaefer claims he and others who purchased or otherwiseacquired Lannett securities between Sept. 10, 2013, and July 16are seeking to recover damages caused by Lannett Company, ArthurP. Bedrosian, Martin P. Galvan and G. Michael Landis, according toa complaint filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that thecompany was fixing, maintaining and controlling prices of Digoxinin violation of Connecticut antitrust laws.

Lannett was allegedly allocating and dividing customers andterritories with competitors relating to the sale of Digoxin inviolation of Connecticut antitrust laws.

Mr. Schaefer claims the company's anticompetitive practicessubjected Lannett to heightened regulatory scrutiny, includingpossible investigation by the Connecticut Office of the AttorneyGeneral and, as a result, Lannett's public statements werematerially false and misleading at all relevant times.

"On July 16 . . . the company issued a press released and filed aForm 8-K with the SEC, announcing that the company receivedinterrogatories and a subpoena from the State of ConnecticutOffice of the Attorney General concerning its investigation intopricing and customer/territorial division of Digoxin," thecomplaint states.

As a result of this news, Lannett stock fell $8.05, more than 17percent, according to the suit.

Mr. Schaefer claims as a result of the defendants' wrongful actsand omissions, and the "precipitous decline in the market value ofthe company's securities," he and other class members havesuffered significant losses and damages.

"The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of allmembers is impracticable," the complaint states. "Throughout theclass period, Lanett securities were actively traded on the NYSE.While the exact number of class members in unknown to plaintiff atthis time and can be ascertained only through discovery, plaintiffbelieves that there are hundreds or thousands of members in theproposed class."

Mr. Schaefer is seeking class certification and compensatorydamages with pre- and post-judgment interest. He is beingrepresented by Michael D. Donovan and Noah Axler of Donovan AxlerLLC; and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Francis P. McConville and Patrick V.Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania casenumber: 2:14-cv-05008

LAWSON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Ismael Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Lawson Industries, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-02220 (M.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excessof 40 hours per week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lawson Industries, Inc. is a foreign manufacturer of windows anddoors doing business within the State of Florida.

The Company said, "The class actions, filed on behalf of Jefferiesshareholders prior to the merger, name as defendants Jefferies,the members of the board of directors of Jefferies, the members ofour board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certainmerger-related subsidiaries. The Actions seek, among otherthings, equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages."

"The New York actions were consolidated and have been stayedthrough pretrial discovery in deference to the Delaware actions,which also have been consolidated. The consolidated Delawareaction alleges that the members of Jefferies board of directorsbreached their fiduciary duties in connection with the mergertransactions by engaging in a flawed process, agreeing to sellJefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to an agreementthat contains improper deal protection terms, and failing todisclose material information concerning the merger transactions,and further that we aided and abetted the directors' breaches offiduciary duties (the Court has since dismissed the formerJefferies independent directors from the action). The action alsoalleges breaches of fiduciary duty against Messrs. Handler andFriedman in their capacities as officers of Jefferies, and againstMessrs. Handler, Friedman, Cumming and Steinberg, collectively, aspurported controlling shareholders of Jefferies. On May 30, 2014,the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to certify theclass. On July 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion forsummary judgment. The plaintiffs' opposition brief is due onAugust 21, 2014. We are unable to predict the outcome of thislitigation or to estimate the amount of or range of any reasonablypossible loss."

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Appeal Heard in "Sykes" Consumer Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company andcertain of its subsidiaries and officers are named as defendantsin a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris &Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York. The nameddefendants also include the Mel Harris law firm, certainindividuals and members associated with the law firm, and aprocess server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees. Theaction arises out of the law firm's obtaining default judgmentsagainst approximately 124,000 individuals in New York City CivilCourt with respect to consumer debt purchased by the Company'ssubsidiaries.

"We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subjectpurchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amountsreceived from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvementin any alleged illegal debt collection activities," the Companysaid.

"The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently obtainedthe default judgments in violation of the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct, the New York General Business Law and the New York JudiciaryLaw (alleged only as to the law firm) and seeks injunctive relief,declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffsand others similarly situated. Defendants' motions to dismisswere denied in part (including as to the claims made against usand our subsidiaries) and granted in part (including as to certainof the claims made against our officers) (the "DismissalDecision"). In September 2012, the Court issued a decisiongranting plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and aRule 23(b)(3) class (the "Certification Decision"). Neither theDismissal Decision nor the Certification Decision addresses theultimate merits of the case.

"At a November 2012 status conference, the parties advised theCourt of their intention to attempt to resolve the dispute throughmediation. Those efforts were not successful and the partiesadvised the Court. On March 28, 2013, the Court entered itscertification order, certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of "allpersons who have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris defendantsas counsel for the Leucadia defendants in actions commenced in NewYork City Civil Court and where a default judgment has or will besought" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "all persons who have beensued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadiadefendants in actions commenced in New York City Civil Court andwhere a default judgment has been obtained." (the "CertificationOrder").

"On July 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit granted our leave to appeal the District Court'sMarch Certification Order. In connection with the appeal, theDistrict Court has granted a stay of the proceedings pending theCourt of Appeals' decision. The appeal was heard on February 7,2014.

"Determinations of both the probability and the estimated amountof loss or potential loss are judgments made in the context ofdevelopments in the litigation. We review these developmentsregularly with our outside counsel. Because we determined that wewould be willing to resolve this matter with plaintiffs for $20.0million, we accrued a litigation reserve for this contingency inthat amount. In arriving at this reserve amount, we considered anumber of factors, including that (i) while the damages sought areindeterminate, payment of this reserved amount would not resolvethe case at this time, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcomeof pending proceedings (including motions and appeals respectingclass certification), (iii) there are significant factual issuesto be determined or resolved, (iv) relevant law is unsettled anduntested legal theories are presented, (v) we have numerousdefenses to the plaintiffs' claims, (vi) there are no adverserulings by the Court on the merits of plaintiffs' claims and (vii)several important litigation milestones, such as the completion ofdiscovery and the filing of summary judgment motions, have not yetoccurred.

"We also note that the plaintiffs in the action -- the classmembers certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)-- have alleged certain categories of damages under each of thestatutes underlying their claims. These damages include (i)statutory damages, which are capped under the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act at $0.5 million for the class, and (ii) actualdamages. While not fully described in the complaint, it appearsthat plaintiffs' claim for actual damages includes not onlyincidental costs incurred in connection with the default judgments(including, for example, subway fares to the courthouse and bankfees), costs relating to emotional distress and costs related toreputational damage allegedly arising as a result of the long-termeffects of the default judgments, but also the full amount of thedebt that class members paid (whether owed or not) following entryof the default judgments. The amount of debt collected to datetotals approximately $90.0 million. If the plaintiffs aresuccessful in proving their claims and in proving actual damages,plaintiffs' damages may be subject to prejudgment interest andtrebling under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct."

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss Haverhill Amended Suit----------------------------------------------------------Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff HaverhillRetirement System ("Haverhill") filed on May 2, 2014, an amendedputative class action and derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint")entitled Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al. in the Courtof Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery")against Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital PartnersMaster Fund I, Ltd., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd.,Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P.(collectively, the "Harbinger Funds"), the members of the board ofdirectors of Harbinger Group, Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominaldefendant Harbinger, as well as Leucadia. The Complaint alleges,among other things, that the directors of Harbinger breached theirfiduciary duties in connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchaseof preferred securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Fundsthat are exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by theHarbinger Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by thespecial committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board inconnection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted theHarbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim ofunjust enrichment against Leucadia. On April 1, 2014, theChancery Court denied Haverhill's motion for expedited proceedingsassociated with the complaint originally filed by Haverhill onMarch 26, 2014. Haverhill filed an amended complaint on May 2,2014. On May 16, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss theamended complaint, and on July 2, 2014, defendants filed briefs insupport of those motions. Haverhill's brief in opposition to themotions to dismiss is due on September 5, 2014.

MASIMO CORPORATION: California Junk Fax Class Action Stayed-----------------------------------------------------------Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that a putative class actioncomplaint was filed on January 2, 2014, against the Company in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California byPhysicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that theCompany sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation ofthe Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. Thecomplaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages ifthe court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plusinterest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, theCompany filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on arelated petition filed by the Company with the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the DistrictCourt granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling bythe FCC on the petition. The Company believes it has good andsubstantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee thatthe Company will prevail.

MASIMO CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Alabama-----------------------------------------------------------Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that an amended putativeclass action complaint was filed on January 31, 2014, against theCompany in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofAlabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant,Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at theUniversity of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amendedcomplaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaintalleges product liability and negligence claims in connection withpulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the requestof study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version ofthe complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the courtdismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeksunspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees, andinjunctive and other relief. The Company believes it has good andsubstantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is noguarantee that the Company will prevail.

MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL: Accused of Sexually Harassing Female Worker----------------------------------------------------------------Dolores J. Dominguez v. The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc.,Wayne Thomas, Individually, and Kenardo Robinson, Individually,Case No. 1:14-cv-07269-RA (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) seeksdamages to redress the injuries that the Plaintiff has suffered asa result of being sexually harassed, discriminated against on thebasis of gender, and retaliated against by her the Defendants.

The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-profit business corporation, with its principal place ofbusiness located in New York City. The Individual Defendants areemployees, officers or managers of the Company.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appellate Review Sought in Concussion Class Action------------------------------------------------------------------Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reportsthat all three judges on the appellate panel summoned by objectorsto the settlement in the NFL concussion case wanted to know whytheir review had been sought at this point -- before the trialjudge has held the fairness hearing scheduled for November.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit panel heardarguments on Sept. 10, about two months after U.S. District JudgeAnita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grantedpreliminary approval to a settlement between the National FootballLeague and the former players who suffered head injuries whilethey played for the league.

Steven Molo of MoloLamken in New York represents seven players whoobject to the settlement. They sought appellate review underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which allows for an appealof an order granting or denying class certification. Thethreshold issue in the case was whether Judge Brody's July ordergranting preliminary approval of the settlement and grantingconditional certification of the class for settlement purposeswould even trigger the Third Circuit's right to review.

Mr. Molo told the court that part of the reasoning behind 23(f)was to keep parties from wasting time and money in litigation."How is this not an invitation to an exquisite example of suchwaste when we are being asked to review something that even thedistrict court has not yet had an opportunity to examine indepth?" Judge D. Brooks Smith asked.

"You're asking us to review a record that is barren of the kind offacts that even the district court should have" for weighing classcertification and settlement approval, Judge Smith said.

Where there are significant issues, Mr. Molo said, the appealscourt can review. In this case, he said, significant issues havebeen raised to Judge Brody twice -- in the form of a motion tointervene and an objection following the preliminary approval ofthe settlement. The judge had declined to answer them at eithertime, Mr. Molo said.

"Why isn't the right thing for us to do to let her examine them atthe time she planned to examine them in a final way?" Judge KentA. Jordan asked. "Why now? Why do you want to do this right now,on this record, instead of waiting until she gives what, in hermind, is the final certification?"

Beyond the objection he said had already been raised to thedistrict court, Mr. Molo noted that the class members' health, insome cases, is rapidly deteriorating.

In the time between the preliminary approval in July and thefairness hearing scheduled for November, the rights of the classmembers are being determined, Mr. Molo said, with the appointmentof class counsel, procedures and timelines.

"You and any other objector can shoot at it at the fairnesshearing," Judge Smith said. "You want two bites at the apple.""No. I want one bite at the apple," Mr. Molo said.

"The class, as certified, is doomed," the players argue in theirpetition to the Third Circuit. "Additionally, the notice ismaterially false and the claims process is improperly complex andexclusionary in violation of due process. Rather than incur thesubstantial expense and inevitable delay of a fairness hearing andensuing opinion, we ask that those problems be addressed now."Samuel Issacharoff, a New York lawyer who is on the class counselteam, emphasized that the appeals court wouldn't have authority toreview an order unless it is final.

"You're being asked to preempt the district court," he said.Judge Thomas L. Ambro was also on the panel.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players Lose Concussion Settlement Appeal-----------------------------------------------------------------Eric M. Johnson, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appealscourt on Sept. 11 rejected an appeal by seven retired NationalFootball League players who argued a recent settlement between theleague and thousands of former players stemming from a lawsuitover concussions does not go far enough.

The appeal, filed in July in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court ofAppeals, came about two weeks after U.S. District Judge AnitaBrody granted preliminary approval to a settlement that removed a$675 million cap on awards to former players who were part of thegroundbreaking head injury lawsuit.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say 20,000 retired players could becovered under the agreement.

Circuit Court Judge Thomas Ambro said in an order denying theappeal that the court would issue an opinion at a later date.

The seven players, including Sean Morey, who coaches at PrincetonUniversity, said the settlement did not offer enough to those whohad yet to see the worst of their symptoms appear, and did notcover all diagnoses suffered by players with head trauma.

The other players are Roderick Cartwright, Sean Considine,Alan Faneca, Ben Hamilton, Jeff Rohrer, and Robert Royal.

The appeal was unusual, partly because retired players who havejoined the lawsuit are due to vote on the settlement in November.The seven players say appealing the settlement after finalapproval would be a costly waste of time.

A three-judge circuit court panel expressed skepticism during aone-hour hearing on Wednesday that they had jurisdiction tointervene before the settlement was made final, the New York Timesreported.

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE, a degenerative diseasebrought on by repeated head trauma, is one of the most commonbrain disorders affecting former players, the appeal said.

A growing body of academic research shows collisions on the fieldcan lead to CTE, which can lead to aggression and dementia.

NAVARRO SECURITY: Faces "Calixto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT-------------------------------------------------------------Evy Calixto, and other similarly-situated individuals v. NavarroSecurity Group, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, LouisSorrentino and Joseph M. Dibbs, Individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-62036 (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over40 in one or more work week.

Navarro Security Group, Inc. is a Florida corporation that isengaged in the business of providing unarmed Officers, armedOfficers, K-9 Officers, and Security Officers with medicaltraining and certifications.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Asbestos Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,reports that a plaintiff with a history of smoking was not able todemonstrate that asbestos was a substantial contributing factor tohis lung cancer because his treating physician from the Departmentof Veterans Affair did not provide a report detailing asbestos'role in his cancer, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

The physician could have been subpoenaed even though federalregulations sharply curb the ability of V.A. personnel to testifyas experts, the court said. As a result, the court reasoned, theplaintiff's widow was not deprived of her constitutional rights toenforce a federal cause of action under the Federal EmployersLiability Act and the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act ina state tort action alleging asbestos claims.

Nor was she deprived of her constitutional rights to seek ameaningful, timely remedy for her injury and her right to a jurytrial, Justice Terrence O'Donnell wrote.

Plaintiff Cleo Renfrow claims that her husband, who died inJanuary 2011, developed lung cancer after being exposed toasbestos while working as a brakeman for Norfolk Southern RailwayCo. from 1968 to 1992. Gerald Renfrow also smoked 1 1/2 packs ofcigarettes every day for a half-century.

The physician retained by Ms. Renfrow is not a "competent medicalauthority" as required by Ohio law. While plaintiffs expertDr. Laxminarayana Rao is board-certified in internal and pulmonarymedicine, the physician did not treat Mr. Renfrow. Instead,Mr. Renfrow was treated by the V.A., which would not authorize hisdoctor to write a written report on whether asbestos exposure wasa substantial contributing factor to his lung cancer.

Ms. Renfrow's counsel did not subpoena the treating physicianbecause of precedent holding that federal employees may not becompelled to obey subpoenas contrary to instructions from theiragencies.

Justice O'Donnell said that Ms. Renfrow's lawyer still could haveissued a subpoena because the 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision inUnited States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen stands for the narrow"proposition that a court may not hold a federal employee incontempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena when he acts inaccordance with a validly enacted agency regulation -- not that afederal official need not comply with a state-issued subpoena,"Justice O'Donnell said.

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only, andJustices Paul Pfeifer and Justice William O'Neill wrote separateconcurrences. Justice O'Neill noted that the case is not over yetuntil "all possible means of securing an opinion from the V.A.doctors have been exhausted."

The Company said, "The files on this device contained certainprotected patient health information related to medicationdispensing transactions from our medication dispensing cabinetsover a one to three-week period, downloaded by the employee whiletroubleshooting software for the hospitals. This loss resulted ina putative class action complaint being filed against us andcertain of our customers in the United States District Court forthe District of New Jersey in March 2013 alleging breach of statesecurity notification laws, violations of state consumer fraudlaws, fraud, negligence and conspiracy relating to the theft of anOmnicell electronic device containing medication dispensingcabinet log files, including certain patient health information,described above and subsequent notification of this unauthorizeddisclosure of personal health information."

"In December 2013, the court issued an order dismissing theplaintiff's complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff failed tofile an appeal of the court's decision by the January 27, 2014deadline," Omnicell said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

PALM BEACH LAUNDRY: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Says--------------------------------------------------------------Wilbert Pierre, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.Palm Beach Laundry and Linen Service, Inc. a Florida ProfitCorporation, and Louis Moya, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-81150(S.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendantfor failure to pay overtime wages for worked more than 40 hoursper week.

Palm Beach Laundry and Linen Service, Inc. is a Floridacorporation that is in the business of laundry and linen services,retail sale of linen supplies, and linen rentals to bothcommercial and personal customers.

Patterson Structural Moving and Shoring is a Louisiana LimitedLiability Company domiciled and doing business in New Orleans,Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Urway Home Renovations is a LouisianaLimited Liability Company domiciled and doing business in Slidell,St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Antonio Padilla is a resident ofJefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Patterson is a company that specializes in home elevations, andnegotiates contracts to elevate homes using the work of thePlaintiffs and others similarly situated to complete the projects.Urway is a company that works together with Patterson in theelevations of homes. Mr. Padilla worked with Patterson and Urwayon the projects where the Plaintiffs were employed.

PECO: Settlement Nears in 2012 Water Main Flooding Suit-------------------------------------------------------Claudia Vargas, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reportsthat more than two years after a 48-inch water main ruptured andflooded a large portion of Southwest Center City, residents andbusiness owners could finally be seeing some relief.

Special master David Fineman, who was assigned by Common PleasCourt Judge Mark I. Bernstein to figure out how to distribute$500,000 -- the city's liability -- to people and businesses withclaims totaling $1.7 million, filed his recommendations onSept. 12, and if approved by the court next month, checks willsoon be in the mail.

The settlement was made possible by Peco's agreeing to accept$240,000 -- about 28 percent for its original claim of $870,000 --as payment in full. Peco's claim was larger than those of all theother aggrieved parties combined. The deal makes it possible forthe other claimants to receive a larger slice of the $500,000 pie.

The news was welcomed by some of the other claimants.

"It didn't seem like Peco was going to budge," said Bruce Amos,whose basement kitchen on 21st Street was flooded, resulting in$29,462 in damage.

Mr. Amos and the other claimants are now in line to receive about60 percent of their claims, an outcome he called "fantastic."

"Everyone walks away with something," Mr. Amos added.

After the main ruptured at 21st and Bainbridge Streets inJuly 2012, more than 100 residents and business owners spent daysdredging mud out of their properties, and afterward filedindividual claims with the city.

But the city's risk management office pointed out that state lawsets the liability limit at $500,000 per incident -- setting off ascramble.

Early in the process, Verizon withdrew its $3,000 claim, but Pecoinsisted on being compensated as much as possible for damage toits lines. That led to a series of meetings among residents andofficials to figure out a way to either get Peco to reduce itsclaim or to find more money.

The case ended up in Judge Bernstein's hands, and he appointedMr. Fineman to sort through the claims and make a recommendation.

Mr. Fineman, whose hourly rate is more than $500, charged adiscounted $225 and is seeking $19,611 in compensation, which willbe taken from the pot.

In addition to the recommendations, Mr. Fineman also urged thelegislature to increase the $500,000 cap, established in 1980. Intoday's money, that is equivalent to $1.3 million.

Two area legislators have introduced bills to address the cap, butboth proposals are stuck in committees. City officials said at ahearing that they were against increasing the cap because it couldresult in higher costs for the cash-strapped city.

Attorneys for some of the victims in June suggested legislationfor City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who represents the district,to introduce that would create a special victims fund.

Mr. Johnson said he was reviewing such legislation and "exploringwhat our options are." His staff is drafting an ordinance thatwould transfer $400,000 from the city's grant revenue fund to paythose parts of the claims that were not reimbursed.

A hearing on the report will be held in City Hall on Oct. 15,after which Judge Bernstein will decide whether to follow therecommendations -- and put the compensation checks in the mail.

PENN WEST PETROLEUM: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Financials------------------------------------------------------------Edwin M. McKean, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., Murray R. Nunns,David E. Roberts, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-07187(S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014), alleges that during the ClassPeriod, the Defendants filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission materially false and misleading financial statements,which understated operating costs and overstated capitalexpenditures and royalty expenses as the Company improperlyclassified certain operating expenses.

Penn West Petroleum Ltd. is one of the largest conventional oiland natural gas producers in Canada.

The class seeks to hold Pfizer accountable for its strategicmanipulation of the patent review, regulatory and judicialprocesses in violation of federal antitrust law.

Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health and Welfare Fundmaintains its principal place of business at in Harrisburg,Pennsylvania.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation. G.D. SearleLLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in NewYork. Searle is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Pfizer.Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. is a private limited companyorganized and existing under the laws of Singapore, with itsprincipal place of business in Tuas South Avenue 6, Singapore.PAP is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.

PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces 9 Class Suits Over Merger With Avago----------------------------------------------------------PLX Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the announcementof the Merger Agreement with Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.)Manufacturing Inc. on June 23, 2014, nine putative class actionlawsuits have been filed by shareholders against the Company, itsdirectors and/or Avago challenging the transactions contemplatedby the Merger Agreement.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company'sdirectors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company'sstockholders by seeking to sell the Company for an inadequateprice, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing topreclusive deal protections in the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffsalso allege that the Company, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.,Parent and the Purchaser aided and abetted the alleged fiduciarybreaches. Plaintiffs finally allege that the 14D-9 recommendationstatement filed by the Company contains false and misleadingstatements and/or omits material information necessary to informthe shareholder vote. The complaints seek, among other things,equitable relief to enjoin the consummation of the proposedtransaction contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and attorneys'fees and costs.

RELIANCE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Water Heater "Buyout" Fee----------------------------------------------------------------Shiona Thompson, writing for AM900, reports that a Burlingtonhomeowner, flooded in the massive deluge last month, got anadditional shock when she opened up her bill from Reliance HomeComfort.

Stephanie McManus is being charged 655 dollars for her rentalwater heater that was ruined by the flood waters in her basementand is refusing to pay this "buyout" fee. Ms. McManus iswondering why people would pay thousands of dollars to rent awater heater over the years if you have to replace it, if damaged.

Reliance marketing director Chris Cory says water heater rentalterms that customers agree to when they sign up state customersare responsible for losses or damages other than normal wear andtear. He likens it to a rental car -- if there is a loss whilethe rented property is in their possession, the customer isresponsible for it.

Ms. McManus, who is a lawyer, plans to gather others affected likeher to launch a class action suit against Reliance.

ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT: Judge Approves $50MM Ponzi Scheme Settlement------------------------------------------------------------------Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports thatU.S. District Judge James I. Cohn approved a settlement onSept. 10 between the trustee overseeing the liquidation of ScottRothstein's defunct law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt, and the U.S.attorney's office, clearing the way for distribution of $50million to victims.

The settlement, negotiated by restitution receiver MichaelGoldberg of Akerman, also was approved by U.S. Bankruptcy JudgeRaymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale.

The ruling calls for Mr. Goldberg to distribute $16.6 million incash, $4 million to $8 million in assets including Mr. Rothstein'swife's jewelry and his Fort Lauderdale mansion, and $12.3 millionfrom "collateral sources." Additionally, Mr. Goldberg willdistribute $28 million in cash held by the U.S. attorney's office.He said he plans to hold additional auctions to sell assets. Mr.Rothstein's holdings were frozen during a four-year battle betweenthe bankruptcy trustee and federal prosecutors over who shouldcontrol distribution of the funds.

Judge Cohn ordered Mr. Goldberg and the U.S. attorney's office tofile a distribution schedule and list qualifying victims within 14days.

San Pietro is a New York domestic business corporation with aprincipal place of business in New York. Gerardo Bruno is theChief Executive Officer of San Pietro, and is an owner,shareholder, director, supervisor, managing agent or proprietor ofSan Pietro. The Company's primary business is the sale of foodand drink for consumption, and is a "restaurant" within themeaning of the New York Labor Law.

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Seek Dismissal of "Corban" Action----------------------------------------------------------Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. intended to file a motion to dismiss aconsolidated amended class action complaint, the company said inits Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June30, 2014.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Companyand certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of thecourt on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days tofile a consolidated amended complaint.

Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21,2014, seeks to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons orentities that purchased or acquired securities of the Companybetween July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidatedamended complaint alleges that Sarepta and certain of its officersviolated the federal securities laws in connection withdisclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeuticcandidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta intended tofile a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on orbefore August 18, 2014.

Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings in thepurported claims, at this time, no assessment can be made as tothe likely outcome of these claims or whether the outcomes wouldhave a material impact on the Company, Sarepta said.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is abiopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and developmentof unique RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of rare andinfectious diseases. The Company is focused on advancing thedevelopment of its Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drugcandidates, including its lead product candidate, eteplirsen, forwhich the Company is currently conducting an ongoing open labelextension study following completion of its initial Phase IIbclinical trials. The Company is also developing therapeutics forthe treatment of infectious diseases.

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bird Food Litigation in Early Stages--------------------------------------------------------The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, forthe quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in connection withthe sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of avoluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as adefendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California as In reMorning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common lawclaims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird foodproducts and a plea agreement entered into in previously pendinggovernment proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffsallege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf ofall persons and entities in the United States who purchasedcertain bird food products. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages(actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble);reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustlyconferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

"The Company intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action.Given the early stages of the action, the Company cannot make adetermination as to whether it could have a material effect on theCompany's financial condition, results of operations or cash flowsand the Company has not recorded any accruals with respectthereto."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its subsidiaries are engaged inthe manufacturing, marketing and sale of consumer branded productsfor lawn and garden care.

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action---------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm on Sept. 9 disclosed that it has filed a classaction lawsuit against SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. on behalf ofpurchasers of the Company's stock in its April 18, 2013, initialpublic offering or on the open market from April 18, 2013 throughAugust 13, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages forSeaWorld shareholders under the federal securities laws.

To join the SeaWorld class action, go to the website athttp://rosenlegal.com/cases-335.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or emailpkim@rosenlegal.com or jstern@rosenlegal.com for information onthe class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Sea World failed to disclose in its IPOdocuments that it (a) had improperly cared for and mistreated itsOrca population which adversely impacted trainer and audiencesafety; (b) continued to feature and breed an Orca that had killedand injured numerous trainers; and (c) consequently createdmaterial uncertainties and risks existing at the time of IPO thatcould adversely impact attendance at its family oriented parks.The lawsuit claims that when details of the Company's improperpractices were revealed by the documentary film Blackfish,SeaWorld misled investors by claiming the decrease in attendanceat its parks was caused by Easter holiday and other factors. Thecomplaint asserts that the decline in attendance was really causedby the mounting negative publicity from the improper practices atSeaWorld that were revealed by the Blackfish film.

On August 13, 2014, the price of SeaWorld Stock dropped by $9.25per share, or 32.9%. This drop followed SeaWorld's announcementof earnings for the second quarter of 2014, where it revealed thatrevenues fell year over year and acknowledged for the first timethat its earnings difficulties were related to negative publicityit has received in connection with its treatment of animals.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanNovember 10, 2014. If you wish to join the litigation go tohttp://rosenlegal.com/cases-337.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orjstern@rosenlegal.com

SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Tentative Settlement Reached in Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------A tentative settlement in principle has been reached to resolvelegal proceedings involving Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., andformal settlement documents are being circulated for review andcomment, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 wereoriginally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19,2009.

The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of theCompany's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in ahousing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,allegedly causing property damage.

Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointeagainst the Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tieholdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Companyfailed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products'susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments.

Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance companyfor the builders and developers against the Company claiming theinsurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedlycaused by the Company's products.

Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by ownersof allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, HasekoHomes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the Ocean Pointedevelopment, brought a third party complaint against the Companyalleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable areactually the fault of the Company. Similarly, Haseko's sub-contractors on the Ocean Pointe development brought cross-claimsagainst the Company seeking indemnity and contribution for anyamounts for which they may ultimately be found liable.

None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought,although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1seeks punitive damages. Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated.

In December 2012, the Court granted the Company summary judgmenton the claims asserted by the plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and4, and on the third party complaint and cross-claims asserted byHaseko and the sub-contractors, respectively, in Case 4.

In April 2013, the Court granted Haseko and the sub-contractors'motion for leave to amend their cross-claims to allege a claim fornegligent misrepresentation. The Company continues to investigatethe facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including,among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; theseverity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected;the responsibility of the general contractor, varioussubcontractors and other construction professionals for thealleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and thecosts of repair, if needed. At this time, the likelihood that theCompany will be found liable under any legal theory and the extentof such liability, if any, are unknown. Management believes theCases may not be resolved for an extended period in the absence ofagreement to settle the Cases and other related legal proceedings.The Company is defending itself vigorously in connection with theCases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Companybelieves that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases maybe covered by its insurance policies. On April 19, 2011, anaction was filed in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company ofPittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al.,Civil No. 11-00254 ACK. In this action, Plaintiff National UnionFire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("NationalUnion"), which issued certain Commercial General Liabilityinsurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in theCases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify theCompany, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of theCompany's strap tie holdown products. By Order dated November 7,2011, all proceedings in the National Union action have beenstayed. If the stay is lifted and the National Union action isnot dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all claimsadvanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman'sFund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, suedHartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurancecompany from whom the Company purchased general liabilityinsurance, in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the"Fireman's Fund action"). The Company has intervened in theFireman's Fund action and the parties have agreed to a stay ofproceedings pending resolution of the underlying Ocean Pointecases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit againstNational Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in theSuperior Court of the State of California in and for the City andCounty of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action"). Inthe San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generallythat the separate pendency of the National Union action and theFireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistentadjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court hasjurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercisejurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and alldisputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among theCompany and its liability insurers; and that the San Franciscocoverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of theunderlying Ocean Pointe Cases. The San Francisco coverage actionhas been ordered stayed pending resolution of the Cases.

Based on recent mediation, a tentative settlement in principle hasbeen reached to resolve all of these legal proceedings, includingCases 1, 2, 3 and 4; the National Union action; the Fireman's Fundaction; and the San Francisco coverage action. Formal settlementdocuments are being circulated for review and comment.

If the tentative settlement in principle is documented in a final,enforceable agreement and its conditions are satisfied, theCompany will incur no uninsured liability in any of these legalproceedings. The Company cannot predict when, if ever, anysettlement will be finalized, and an unfavorable outcome couldresult in uninsured liability that substantially exceeds theamount of such tentative settlement in principle. It is notpossible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any suchpossible excess.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Siani" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy---------------------------------------------------------------Aaron Siani, individually and, on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-06972 (C.D.Cal., September 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant forwillfully employing and causing to be employed certain recordingequipment in order to record the telephone conversations of thePlaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff,thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major U.S. airline and the world'slargest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Bank Faces Sallie Mae Indemnification Claim--------------------------------------------------------------On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLMCorporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California as a putative class action withrespect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made bySallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,including Bank SNB, National Association, banking subsidiary ofSouthwest Bancorp Inc., and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiff claimsthat Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks inorder to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de factolender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan,Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates Californiausury law and the California Business and Professions Code.Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and hasstated that it intends to vigorously defend the action.

On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiff's request tocertify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiff toamend its filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed arenewed motion on June 23, 2014.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Bank SNB is not namedin the action but in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Maeprovided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been assertedagainst Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Maeasserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnificationand/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreementdated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant towhich the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB hassubstantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnificationor repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intendsto vigorously defend against any such claims.

SPORT CHALET: Facing Class Actions Over Merger With Vestis----------------------------------------------------------Sport Chalet, Inc., on June 30, 2014, publicly announced it hadentered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "MergerAgreement") with Vestis Retail Group, LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company ("Vestis"), and Everest Merger Sub, Inc., aDelaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vestis("Merger Sub").

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tenderoffer (the "Offer") to purchase all of the outstanding shares ofthe Class A Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share, of theCompany (the "Class A Shares") and the Class B Common Stock, $0.01par value per share, of the Company (the "Class B Shares" andtogether with the Class A Shares, the "Common Stock") at a priceper share of $1.20, net to the seller, in cash without interest,less any applicable withholding taxes, and subject to adjustmentas described below. If the shares of Common Stock tendered intothe Offer, together with the shares to be acquired by Merger Subpursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement and the Top-Up Option (asdescribed in the Merger Agreement) do not constitute at least 90%of each of the Class A Shares and the Class B Shares on a fullydiluted basis (as calculated pursuant to the Merger Agreement),the price per share of all Common Stock subject to the Offer willautomatically be reduced to $1.04, net to the seller, in cashwithout interest, less any applicable withholding taxes. On August3, 2014, the Company entered into Amendment No. 1 (the "MergerAgreement Amendment"), to the Merger Agreement to change thedefinition of Initial Offer Expiration Time from midnight, NewYork City time, at the end of August 1, 2014 to midnight, New YorkCity time, at the end of August 15, 2014.

The plaintiff in each case alleges that the Sport Chalet directorsbreached their fiduciary duties to Sport Chalet stockholders, andthat the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, byseeking to sell Sport Chalet through an allegedly flawed processand for inadequate consideration. Each plaintiff also alleges thatthe directors breached their fiduciary duties with respect to thecontents of the tender offer solicitation/recommendation materialson Schedule 14D-9. Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things,equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of theProposed Transaction, rescission of the Proposed Transaction (tothe extent it has already been implemented) and attorneys' feesand costs.

"We intend to defend the suits vigorously. We are not able toevaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can weestimate a range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorableoutcome at the present time. If resolved unfavorably to us, thislitigation could have a material adverse effect on our financialcondition," Sport Chalet said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 29, 2014.

STERICYCLE INC: Defending Against Suits Over Excessive Price Hike-----------------------------------------------------------------Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company was servedon March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S.District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by anindividual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other"similarly situated" customers.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, thatwe imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and othercharges on our customers in breach of our contracts and inviolation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive BusinessPractices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuitas a class action and the award to class members of appropriatedamages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of asettlement with the State of New York of an investigation underthe New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaintdescribes at some length). The New York investigation arose out ofa qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal FalseClaims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed underseal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois in April 2008 by a former employee of the Company. Thecomplaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 statesand the District of Columbia.

On September 4, 2013, the Company filed its answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally denying theallegations therein.

Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina haveissued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations madeon their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decidedwhether to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,the Company was served with class action complaints filed infederal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi andUtah and in state court in California. These complaints assertedclaims and allegations substantially similar to those made in thePennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear tobe follow-on litigation to the Company's settlement with the Stateof New York.

On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(MDL) granted the Company's Motion to Transfer these relatedactions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralizedpretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, the Company filedanswer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in theMDL action, generally denying the allegations therein.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms ofour customer contracts and that these complaints are withoutmerit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each ofthese lawsuits," the Company said.

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class actioncomplaints, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss orthe range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We areunable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by itsnature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the class actionproceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, thereare no comparable class action proceedings against otherdefendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. Wereview our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly,and we will disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible lossor range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able tomake such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range ofreasonably possible losses is material to our financialstatements."

The Company is in the business of providing regulated andcompliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.

STERICYCLE INC: Filed Answer to Illinois Junk Fax Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 2, 2014, theCompany was served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf ofall other "similarly situated" persons.

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimiletransmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff andothers similarly situated in violation of the Junk Fax PreventionAct of 2005. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as aclass action and the award to class members of appropriate damagesand injunctive relief. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to thecomplaint, generally denying the allegations therein," the Companysaid.

The Company is in the business of providing regulated andcompliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.

SUNEDISON INC: Motion for Reconsideration Filed in "Jones" Case---------------------------------------------------------------SunEdison, Inc., et al. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class actionlawsuit was filed on December 26, 2008, in the U.S. District Courtfor the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones,purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries ofSunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4,2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint assertedclaims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employeesand/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaintalleged that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owedunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generallyasserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure tothe Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison'sstock and that the company's stock should not have been madeavailable as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaintalso alleged that SunEdison failed to disclose certain materialfacts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which hadthe effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed byMr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, ManuelAcosta, which raised substantially the same claims and was basedon substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.However, the amended complaint changed the period of time coveredby the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiariesof and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through thepresent, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecifiedmonetary damages, including losses the participants andbeneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to theirinvestment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable reliefand an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified anddiscovery has not begun. The company and the named directors andemployees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fullybriefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties eachsubsequently filed notices of supplemental authority andcorresponding responses.

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. TheSunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in thealternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which wasfully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties eachsubsequently filed notices of supplemental authority andcorresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court grantedthe SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated itsorder denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, andstated that it would revisit the issues raised in the motion todismiss after the parties supplement their arguments. Both partiesfiled briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.

On June 28, 2011, Mr. Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawalfrom the action, and the court subsequently entered an orderwithdrawing Mr. Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. Theparties each have continued to file additional notices ofsupplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27,2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on theirpending motion to dismiss, and Mr. Acosta joined in the SunEdisondefendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012.

"On March 24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss butthe plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, amotion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Courtdecision in a case that could have implications in this matter.That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and theplaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the districtcourt, based on that Supreme Court decision. We believe that wecontinue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend tovigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

SunEdison is a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energysolutions and a global leader in the development, manufacture andsale of silicon wafers to the semiconductor industry.

The banks claim Target was negligent in its handling of shoppers'credit and debit card information, which allowed hackers to stealsensitive information about some 100 million U.S. consumers. Thebanks are seeking class-action status in the case.

But in a response filed Sept. 2, Minneapolis-based Target arguedthe banks' costs aren't its responsibility. Target argues that asa retailer, it is two steps removed from the banks and creditunions that issued the cards -- and therefore, not liable underthe law.

The legal back-and-forth is taking place before U.S. DistrictJudge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul, where more than 100 Targetbreach-related lawsuits from around the country have beenconsolidated.

In its response, Target's attorneys wrote that when a customerswipes a card at a store, the merchant gets "authorization andpayment for the transaction not from the bank that issued thecard, but rather from a payment processor and/or a merchant bank."

Meanwhile, the bank "obtains authorization and payment under itsseparate contract with a payment card company such as Visa orMasterCard," Target's attorneys said, adding, "Issuing banks andmerchants have no direct dealings with one another in the paymentcard transaction process.

That two-steps-removed relationship, Target argues, means it isn'tlegally responsible, and that the banks' effort to bring a class-action lawsuit should be dismissed.

Banks also argued that Target violated a state law banningretailers from storing sensitive card information after atransaction was complete. Target suggests it didn't store suchinformation -- that the data was stolen in real time, as shoppersswiped their cards.

"Cyber criminals are fully capable of stealing payment card datathat was never stored by a merchant for future use, and that isexactly what occurred here," Target argued.

The filing did provide a bit more detail on the data breach, whichoccurred during last year's busy holiday season. Some 40 millionU.S. shoppers had credit and debit-card data stolen, and another70 million Target shoppers had other personal information stolen.

Target's lawyers wrote that hackers stole credentials from athird-party vendor to gain access to its computer network.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Advocacy Group Files Discrimination Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that an advocacygroup for the blind filed a discrimination suit against UberTechnologies Inc. on Sept. 9, claiming the company's drivers haverefused to pick up blind customers with service dogs.

Drivers have ignored, shouted at and sped away from blindcustomers accompanied by guide dogs, according to the complaintfiled in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allegeon one occasion an Uber driver locked a passenger's service dog inthe trunk of a sedan. In other cases, blind passengers have beenforced to pay cancellation fees after they were passed over byUber drivers, according to lawyers with Disability RightsAdvocates and TRE Legal Practice.

"We brought this action because we've been receiving manycomplaints from many different blind individuals about thediscrimination they've experienced," said Michael Nunez ofDisability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal center with anoffice in Berkeley.

Uber says it deactivates the account of any driver who refuses totransport a service animal. The company's smartphone app alsoincludes features for visually impaired riders.

"The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation optionsfor all, including users with visual impairments and otherdisabilities," a company representative wrote in an emailedstatement.

Mr. Nunez's team filed the suit on behalf of the NationalFederation of the Blind of California and Michael Hingson, a blindpublic speaker from Victorville.

Plaintiffs have accused Uber of violating the Americans withDisabilities Act and state civil rights laws. As a result, blindriders "face unexpected delays, they must arrange alternatetransportation that is sometimes more costly, and they face thedegrading experience of being denied a basic service that isavailable to all other paying customers," Mr. Nunez's team wrote.

Mr. Nunez said his goal is to work out a settlement through whichUber will agree to accommodate service animals.

"We're hoping that we will be able to resolve this matter asexpediently as possible," he said. But so far Uber has refused tocome to the table, Mr. Nunez said. In prelitigation talks, Uberhas taken the position it's not legally obligated to accommodateblind riders because it is not a transportation provider, the suitalleges.

Uber has made that argument before, claiming it is in the businessof software, not transportation. But that line hasn't worked onthe California Public Utilities Commission, which imposedregulations on the company in September.

Even without the transportation label, Uber is still required toaccommodate people with disabilities, according to Lawrence Organof the California Civil Rights Law Group, who is not involved withthe case. Silicon Valley startups may be more vulnerable todiscrimination suits, Mr. Organ said, because they tend not tohave strong policies in place to conform with civil rights laws.

"They don't know what to do," Mr. Organ said, "and so they kind ofthink that they don't have to do anything."

UGI CORPORATION: Facing 25+ Class Actions Over Propane Tanks------------------------------------------------------------On March 27, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued anadministrative complaint against AmeriGas Partners L.P. and itssubsidiaries ("Partnership") and UGI Corporation alleging thatAmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the "General Partner"), and one of itscompetitors colluded in 2008 to persuade its common customer,Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept the propane cylinder fillreduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The complaint does notseek monetary remedies. The Partnership and UGI filed theirAnswer to the complaint April 18, 2014, and believe that they havegood defenses to the FTC's claims.

Following the issuance of the FTC's administrative complaintdescribed above, more than 25 class action lawsuits have beenfiled in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGICorporation and a competitor by certain of their direct andindirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege that thePartnership and its competitor colluded in 2008 to reduce the filllevel and combined to persuade its common customer, WalmartStores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting inincreased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers inviolation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claimsseek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees andcosts on behalf of the putative classes.

"We believe these lawsuits will eventually be consolidated by amultidistrict litigation panel. We are unable to reasonablyestimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. Webelieve we have strong defenses to the claims and intend tovigorously defend against them," UGI said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, throughsubsidiaries and affiliates, distributes and markets energyproducts and related services. UGI conducts a domestic retailpropane marketing and distribution business through AmeriGasPartners, L.P.

UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Chaplains' Class Certification Bid---------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a group ofProtestant Navy chaplains, who allege the service has a culture ofdenominational favoritism that infringes their constitutionalrights, was unable to persuade a federal judge to bless their bidfor class certification.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbiaruled the case brought by 65 current and former chaplains and agroup of nondenominational evangelical Christian churches did notmeet legal requirements for class status, predominantly by failingto show common issues of law or fact.

Instead, Judge Kessler wrote in her Sept 4. opinion in In re: NavyChaplaincy, the case consists of individual anecdotes without"significant proof of any specific unconstitutional policy orpractice that applied to them across the board as a class andproduced a common legal injury." She buttressed that conclusionby citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukesdecision, which rejected the notion of an unstated corporateculture that permitted bias against women to manifest into a classof victims of "one common discriminatory practice."

The chaplains contend that the Navy operates with a "pervasiveculture of hostility, animosity and prejudice" towards members ofnonliturgical faiths, such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostalsand charismatic faiths, and a bias in favor of the more mainstreamliturgical Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians.

The plaintiffs accused the service of following unwritten rulesthat led to the use of quotas to limit entry to the corps ofchaplains, as well as denial of promotions and the imposition oftransfers and removals -- all designed to ensure dominance of theliturgical chaplains. They allege the Navy violated their Firstand Fifth Amendment rights and the federal Religious Freedom andRestoration Act.

But Judge Kessler characterized the Navy's chaplaincy as an entitywith an unequivocally stated policy of non-discrimination, as wellas a decentralized structure of 500 duty stations around the worldwhere local commanders are responsible for religious programs --all arguing against a culture of bias.

Judge Kessler criticized the plaintiffs for dragging out the case,which originated in 1999 and has generated more than 20 federaldistrict court and appeals court opinions, and suggested theirprimary focus is not the interests of specific class members toobtain relief, but rather fundamental reform of the Navy's hiringand retention policies for chaplains.

"Plaintiffs have repeatedly subordinated the proposed classmembers' interests in prompt adjudication of their claims to theircampaign for institutional reform," she wrote.

VETERANS AFFAIRS: Faces "Watson" Class Suit in South Carolina-------------------------------------------------------------Beverly Watson, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Robert A. McDonald, in his official capacity asSecretary of Veterans Affairs; Timothy McMurry, in his officialcapacity as the Medical Director of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VAMedical Center; Ruth Mustard, RN in her official capacity as theAssociate Director for Patient Care/Nursing Services of WilliamJennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center; David L. Omura, in hisofficial capacity as the Associate Director of William JenningsBryan Dorn VA Medical Center; Jon Zivony, in his official capacityas the Assistant Director of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VAMedical Center; and Sue Panfil, in her official capacity as thePrivacy Officer of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center,Case No. 3:14-cv-03594-TLW (D.S.C., September 9, 2014) seeksrelief pursuant to right to Privacy Act.

VIVUS INC: Briefing of Class Action Appeal Complete---------------------------------------------------Vivus Inc., a current officer and a former officer were defendantsin a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS, Inc., etal., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court,Northern District of California. The action, filed in November2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federalSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false ormisleading statements made by the defendants in connection withthe Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The Court granteddefendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended ClassAction Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; byorder dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was withprejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants the sameday. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaitingword on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oralargument, VIVUS said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approvedby the FDA: Qsymia for chronic weight management and STENDRA forerectile dysfunction. STENDRA is also approved by the EuropeanCommission, or EC, under a trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatmentof erectile dysfunction in the EU.

YELP INC: Taps Gilbert Serota to Defend Securities Class Actions----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Yelp Inc.has tapped Arnold & Porter to fight claims the company misledinvestors about the nature of its reviews.

Partner Gilbert Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- willdefend the company against two securities class actions filed inthe Northern District of California, according to noticessubmitted on Sept. 11. The suits accuse Yelp of making companiespay to suppress criticism on the consumer review website andmobile platforms, and then hiding that practice from shareholders.Yelp management's misstatements artificially inflated stockprices, according to the plaintiffs lawyers, allowing insiders tocash out for more than $81 million.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed the first case in early August.Glancy Binkow & Goldberg followed with a similar suit three weekslater.

Yelp has had to fight a spate of defamation and false advertisingsuits related to its screening of online reviews. In those cases,as well as in intellectual property cases, Yelp has tended to relyon Cooley, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Durie Tangri.

Mr. Serota, who works in Arnold & Porter's San Francisco office,specializes in securities litigation, according to his online bio.His team includes counsel Marjory Gentry and associate Ryan Keats.

ZIONS FIRST: 3rd Cir. to Examine Class Certification Standards--------------------------------------------------------------Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reportsthat a suit alleging mass-market fraud on the part of Zions FirstNational Bank and its subsidiaries gave the Third Circuit a chanceto examine the standards for class certification.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania denied certification of the class becausethe plaintiffs hadn't satisfied the commonality and predominancerequirements, saying they hadn't established classwide injurysince they hadn't given the court proof that the bank haddefrauded all the class members.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit, arguing that the district court had held them to astandard of proof that was too high and failed to properly weighthe expert witnesses offered to the court.

Because the plaintiffs proceeded under a "complete sham" theory,they had to prove that all of the companies -- mostlytelemarketing companies -- involved were shams at the classcertification stage and they failed to do that, the bank argued.

"Help me with a practical result," Chief Judge Theodore McKee saidto the bank's lawyer, Jason Snyderman -- Snyderman@BlankRome.com-- of Blank Rome. "It could be quite possible that if you'reright here, what would come of this would be the Google map totelemarketers in terms of how to commit fraud."

Judge Sanchez had made a factual finding that one of the companiesinvolved was legitimate, Mr. Snyderman had told the court earlier.And, he said, if one company is legitimate, it is likely that theother companies would be able to offer similar evidence of theirlegitimacy.

"That is the kind of existential leap that boggles my mind,"Judge McKee said.

If a case has 10 defendants and one of them offers proof that it'snot a sham company, then, Judge McKee wondered, chances are thatthe other nine companies are legitimate, too?

"I don't understand the logic of that," the judge said.

Using a similar illustration for his question about the map tofraud, Judge McKee asked, if a telemarketing company sets itselfup with 5 percent of its business as legitimate and the other 95percent "is really there just to hose down the people it calls,get their account numbers, do identity theft, but it's got 5percent legitimate, how do we get around the practical problemyou're arguing?"

Mr. Snyderman responded that if someone sets up a company "to have5 percent legitimacy and 95 percent fraud . . . the court shouldfind after doing rigorous analysis there's no uniform evidence togo across the whole class and there's no individual issues thatdon't predominate over the common ones -- class certification justwouldn't be appropriate."

In his brief to the court, Mr. Snyderman had said, "Well-settledThird Circuit precedent holds that individual issues generallypredominate over common issues when liability for fraud is basedon varied oral representations, like those alleged here, such thatclass certification should be denied. See In re LifeUSA Holding;Johnston v. HBO Film Management." He cited those cases, both from2001, to McKee during argument. "Because the allegedtelemarketing fraud involved hundreds of thousands of alleged oralmisrepresentations, class certification was properly denied,"Mr. Snyderman said in the brief.

For the plaintiffs' part, Howard Langer --hlanger@langergrogan.com -- of Langer, Grogan & Diver emphasizedto the appeals court that he isn't focusing on how each of thepotential class members acted, rather, "We're focusing on what wasgoing on, what was sold, so to speak. . . . Mr. Reyes was told hewas going to get a government grant, in our complaint we say otherpeople were told they were getting called by the Social SecurityAdministration, another person was told it was the Army callinghim to follow up on his pension."

Some of the potential class members had no contact with thetelemarketers, though, Judge Patty Shwartz pointed out, askingLanger to address a point that had been raised repeatedly by thethird member of the appellate panel, Judge D. Brooks Smith.

"I'm having a hard time figuring out how your argument relates tothe denial of certification. It sounds to me like you're arguingthe merits," Judge Smith had said.

"If we show that the bank was operating with this subsidiary as a[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] enterprise,which is our allegation, we will resolve in one stroke a majorelement of every person's claim," Mr. Langer said.

Citing numerous errors in an 84-page opinion, Judge Gerald Tjoflattraced the problem to the 2008 case filings by the Wilner Firm.It didn't have the time or resources to fully investigate all theclaims filed on behalf of 4,432 individuals, according to thecourt record.

"Problem after problem cropped up," Judge Tjoflat wrote for theunanimous panel. "There were personal injury claims filed onbehalf of deceased smokers, wrongful death claims filed by'survivors' of smokers who were still living, cases filed as aresult of 'clerical errors,' multiple cases filed for the sameperson, cases filed for people the law firm had no contact with,claims that had already been adjudicated by another court, casesfiled for people who didn't want to pursue a lawsuit and claimsfiled long after the relevant limitations period had run."

In 1996, attorney Norwood Wilner tried one of the first successfulsmoker cases against a tobacco company. As a result, he wasinundated with clients after the Florida Supreme Court disbanded astatewide class action carrying the name of Dr. Howard Engle andopened the door to a new round of individual lawsuits in 2006.

After Mr. Wilner's en masse filings in 2008, the tobaccodefendants moved his state court cases to federal court in theMiddle District of Florida. In the ensuing years, the districtcourt, through a master docket, weeded out hundreds of cases.More than 700 were dismissed and 500 were consolidated, leavingabout 2,700 cases, Judge Tjoflat noted.

'588 Mistakes'

"For [Wednes]day's purposes, we only focus on two of theseproblems: the predeceased personal injury plaintiffs and thedecedent-smokers who died more than two years before Engle wasfiled," Judge Tjoflat said. "These cases all suffered fromvarious patent defects. As any lawyer worth his salt knows, adead person cannot maintain a personal injury claim."

Of the 750 cases considered on Sept. 10, 588 were personal injurycases, 160 were for loss of consortium, and two were wrongfuldeath claims.

The district court reasoned the personal injury cases could not beamended. Also, the procedural substitution of a personalrepresentative for the dead smokers was disallowed "because theyhad not shown that Mr. Wilner's 588 mistakes were understandable,"the district court said.

Even if plaintiffs counsel could have substituted plaintiffs andamended the claims, it was too late.

"Because we find the court's decision to deny leave to amend to beeminently reasonable, we need not consider whether a personalinjury claim brought on behalf of a deceased individual has anylegal effect, such that it can later be amended," Judge Tjoflatsaid.

He also noted a lack of responsiveness from Mr. Wilner's firm.

"Common sense dictates that a lawyer who filed over 500 defectivepleadings and who later seeks the court's leave to fix hismistakes must establish that he is entitled to it," he said.Mr. Wilner told the court his firm collected 3,000 clients by 1998and stayed in contact with most of them while the Engle classaction was being adjudicated in Miami. Some clients were lost ortheir whereabouts were unknown by the Engle filing deadline.

Faced with a deadline, Mr. Wilner "elected to list all claimantsof unknown status under the name of the injured or deceased partywho had first contacted me or my firm," the court said.

Judge Tjoflat said, "That's it. We are not told what the WilnerFirm did to keep up with its clients during the decade or so thatEngle was winding through the state court."

On the loss of consortium claims, Mr. Wilner asked to change 25cases to wrongful death or survivor damages. The other 135 caseswere dismissed without comment, and only now does Mr. Wilnerquestion them, Judge Tjoflat said. To the extent that plaintiffscounsel suggest the dismissal of the 135 was "inadvertent or cameas a surprise to them, we reject both contentions outright," thejudge wrote.

As for the 25, the district court held any amendment would befutile because the Engle class did not bring loss of consortiumclaims. Thus, the claims were untimely when they were filed, hesaid.

* Courts to Impose Procedural Controls for Mass Copyright Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's Sid Venkatesan and Randy Wu, inan article for Law.com, wrote that recent years have seen anastonishing rise in the number of "Mass Doe" copyright lawsuits,alleging copyright violation against unknown "John Doe" defendantsbased on their alleged downloading of files through the BitTorrentfile-sharing system. According to a recent study by professorMatthew Sag at Loyola Law School, Mass Doe suits now account forfully half of all copyright lawsuits filed in federal courts.Such lawsuits may be meritorious attempts by lawful rights-holdersseeking to prevent unauthorized distribution of copyrighted worksover the Internet or through peer-to-peer software applications(as in John Wiley & Sons v. Does [S.D.N.Y. 2012]). Other Mass Doelawsuits, however, are brought by so-called copyright trolls andtarget hundreds of thousands of defendants. They seek early,nuisance-value settlements that are less than the cost of anindividual defendant fighting off a potentially embarrassing claimof copyright infringement (such as for alleged copying ofpornographic material).

Perhaps in reaction to the public outcry in response to Mass Doesuits, U.S. courts have started to impose enhanced proceduralcontrols around such lawsuits.

How They Work

Mass Doe lawsuits often are targeted at allegedly unauthorizedcopying over BitTorrent. BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file-sharing system that allows users to simultaneously upload anddownload content by working together in "swarms." Each user in aswarm is identified by its Internet protocol (IP) address.Copyright piracy monitoring groups may monitor the IP addressesparticipating in a swarm that is sharing copyrighted content.

A plaintiff that tracks allegedly copyrighted content being sharedover BitTorrent may sue the participants based on their IPaddresses, naming them as "Doe" defendants to be named afterdiscovery. Plaintiffs in Mass Doe suits may target severalthousand defendants in each such lawsuit to conserve resourcessuch as filing fees. During discovery, the plaintiff willsubpoena the Internet service providers (ISPs) for the personalinformation of the subscriber for each IP address. With thisinformation, the plaintiff may send a letter to each subscriber,offering to settle for a few thousand dollars -- just below thecosts of a bare-bones defense. Defendants have a strong incentiveto settle because statutory damages for willful copyrightinfringement can be as high as $150,000 by statute, setting asidethe cost of legal defense. There is also the embarrassment factorwhen these lawsuits are aimed at pornographic content.

The structured approach of copyright trolling makes it a hugelyprofitable enterprise. For example, Prenda Law, a notoriouscopyright trolling organization that courts have lambasted as a"porno-trolling collective," reportedly made around $15 million inless than three years.

Courts Take Action

U.S. courts recently have used various procedural tools to stymiecopyright trolls. Greater attention has been brought to threeareas: permissive joinder analysis under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 19, personal jurisdiction and adequately pleading in aMass Doe complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

Permissive Joinder Is Becoming More Difficult: U.S. courtshistorically have been split on whether anonymous Doe defendantsmay be joined permissively in a single action. Some courts havereasoned that any one defendant in a BitTorrent swarm facilitatesthe participation of all later users. However, recent case lawmay be trending away from that view. For example, in 2013 JudgeStephanie Rose of the Southern District of Iowa ruled in KillerJoe Nevada v. Does that "participation in a specific swarm is tooimprecise a factor" to support joinder, and required the plaintiffto show contemporaneous participation in the swarm before an IPaddress may be joined. Judge Rose joined other courts that notedthe logistical problems that would arise from potentiallythousands of defendants participating in a single litigation(e.g., Hard Drive Productions v. Does [N.D. Cal. 2011]).

The trend of more restrictive joinder got a big boost in May 2014,when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the"contemporaneous" requirement for establishing joinder amongBitTorrent participants in AF Holdings v. Does. The D.C. Circuitconcluded that otherwise, simply being part of the same swarm islike playing at the same blackjack table at different times.Given that this is the first appellate decision to articulate atest for permissive joinder, the D.C. Circuit's decision may beseen as influential in other circuits.

Personal Jurisdiction: AF Holdings also demonstrates that judgesmay scrutinize claims of personal jurisdiction more closely. TheD.C. Circuit found that the plaintiff AF Holdings must "have atleast a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it toshow that the court has personal jurisdiction over thedefendants." This may be a challenge at the outset of a casesince knowing a defendant's IP address does not itself identifythe specific geographic location of the defendant. Plaintiff AFHoldings presented no evidence that the defendants lived in theDistrict of Columbia or downloaded the copyright work there, andtherefore the D.C. Circuit denied the discovery requests on thegrounds that AF Holdings had not established personal jurisdictionover all of the Doe defendants. The court further warned thatplaintiffs may not "improperly use court processes by attemptingto gain information about hundreds of IP addresses located allover the country in a single action, especially when many of thoseaddresses fall outside of the court's jurisdiction."

Motions to Dismiss: In January 2014, Judge Robert Lasnik of theWestern District of Washington in Elf-Man v. Cariveau dismissed acopyright lawsuit based on the fact that the plaintiff allegedonly that each defendant pays for the Internet service that wasused to download and/or distribute the copyrighted movie. Thecourt found that simply identifying the IP account holder saysvery little about who actually participated in the BitTorrentswarm; it could very well be a family member, guest or even athird party interloper who did. The court also rejected thenotion that the IP account holder indirectly infringed thecopyright by failing to "secure, police and protect the use oftheir Internet service against illegal conduct," because theplaintiff did not adequately allege that the IP account holder hadthe requisite intent to induce infringement.

Conclusion

These decisions may presage a general trend of tighter judicialcontrols over Mass Doe lawsuits, whether initiated by a copyrighttroll or not. There are surely many meritorious claims ofcopyright infringement that may be addressed efficiently usingMass Doe lawsuits, and both copyright holders and defendants wouldbe advised to keep track of these changes in the law.

Sid Venkatesan is an IP partner and former engineer specializingin intellectual property disputes for Internet and entertainmentcompanies in the Silicon Valley office of Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe. He edits Orrick's leading trade secrets and NorthernCalifornia IP blogs. Randy Wu is an associate in Orrick's IPgroup and a recent graduate of Stanford Law School.

* Siskinds Announces Protocol for LCD Settlement Distribution-------------------------------------------------------------Siskinds of London, Ontario and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman ofVancouver, BC on Sept. 10 announced court approval of a protocolfor the distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian LCDprice-fixing class action. The class action alleges price-fixingin the market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels used intelevisions, computer monitors and laptop computers. The classaction was undertaken in 2007 by Siskinds, CFM and SiskindsDesmueles of Quebec City.

Settlements totalling $37.6 million have been reached with fivedefendant groups. The settled defendants do not admit anywrongdoing or liability. The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebeccourts approved the settlements and a protocol for distribution ofsettlement funds. The class action is continuing against theother five defendant groups.

"The settlements represent a huge victory for Canadian consumersand businesses," said Charles Wright --charles.wright@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP in London. "Thecourt-approved protocol we are announcing [Wednes]day is aninvitation to eligible Canadian families and businesses to recoupcosts that should never have been billed in the first place."

Persons who purchased LCD products (regardless of the manufactureror brand) during the 1998 to 2006 period are eligible to claimsettlement benefits. Individuals can claim for a maximum of twoundocumented purchases per household. Claims can be filed onlineat www.lcdclassactioncanada.com on or before December 9, 2014.More information about the settlements, the distribution ofsettlement funds and the claims process can be found online atwww.lcdclassactioncanada.com or by calling the claimsadministrator at 1-866-432-5534.

"We are proud of what we have achieved thus far on behalf of classmembers," said Mr. Wright. "In concert with our colleagues inVancouver and Quebec City, we will continue to pursue the classaction against the remaining defendants in this case."

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm based in London, with anoffice in Toronto. Siskinds LLP has earned worldwide recognitionfor its work in plaintiff-side class action litigation.

CFM is a boutique law firm based in Vancouver specializing inclass actions, aviation accident litigation and product liabilitylitigation, on behalf of plaintiffs.

Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. is an affilate of Siskinds LLP andhas offices in Montreal and Quebec City.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.